M/S TRADITIONAL GALLERY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of Rs. 33,83,847/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the AO, sustained the addition of Rs. 91,15,011/-. Now the assessee

M/S TRADITIONAL GALLERY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of Rs. 33,83,847/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the AO, sustained the addition of Rs. 91,15,011/-. Now the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S JAINCO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

disallowance under s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D can thus be effected even in a situation where a tax payer has not earned any taxable income in a particular year. 9. We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. The provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Maharashtra

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SUDHA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

disallowance under s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D can thus be effected even in a situation where a tax payer has not earned any taxable income in a particular year. 9. We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. The provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the Judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Maharashtra

DURGA SINGH RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1) JAIPUR / CPC BENGALURU, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

211, Jaswant nagar, Khatipura, Bengaluru. Jaipur-302012. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AJOPR 9627 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Deepak Gupta (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 09/11/2021 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S TOLARAM SATYADEV AGRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

disallowance under s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D can thus be effected even in a situation where a tax payer has not earned any taxable income in a particular year. 9. We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. The provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Maharashtra

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KOTA vs. M/S NARESH KUMAR MANOJ KUMAR, , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

disallowance under s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D can thus be effected even in a situation where a tax payer has not earned any taxable income in a particular year. 9. We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view. The provisions of section 14A were inserted ' as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Maharashtra

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

disallowance according to the provisions of Rule 8D as applicable for the year under consideration would be merely Rs. 2,118/- on account of indirect expenses and nil on account of direct expenses as there were no directly attributable expenses. In view of above, it is prayed that the order passed by ld.AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Disallowance u/s 36 (1)(iii) (Rs.21,732/-) ;\n(D) New Loans accepted during the year (Rs.6.35 Crores).\nThe AO is directed to complete the assessment afresh on the above\nmentioned issues/points, keeping in view the observations marked\nherein above.\n9.2 Further, it is also made clear that as the assessment order dated\n15.04.2021 is PARTLY SET-ASIDE, as categorically mentioned

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

211 /JPR/2022 & 289/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Avas Financiers Ltd cuke The Pr. CIT 201-202, 2nd Floor, Southend Square Vs. Jaipur -1 Jaipur. Mansarovar Industrial Area, Jaipur 303020 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJCA2237 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Advocate Shri Rajat

SMT. SUMAN CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

211 ITD 580 (Raipur - Trib.)[29-01-2025] Where case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of specific issue, Assessing Officer could not have ventured into a different issue (difference in purchase consideration of property) that did not form basis for taking up case for such scrutiny assessment without getting said limited scrutiny converted into complete scrutiny

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

disallowed. - 3.6 Ld. AO on perusal of the ITR and financial statements of assessee noticed that an amount of Rs. 72,75,94,000/- has been paid on account of Buy Back of Shares to the tune of Rs. 71,99,99,211/-. Ld. AO noted that as there has been an amendment vide Finance Act, 2019 section

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

disallowed the said amount u/s 37(1) as inadmissible expenditure. The action of the AO to invoke section 69A is not sustainable as the said expenditure has been incurred in the course of the business of the appellant. Accordingly ground no. 04 & 08 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowed the said amount u/s 37(1) as inadmissible expenditure. The action of the AO to invoke section 69A is not sustainable as the said expenditure has been incurred in the course of the business of the appellant. Accordingly ground no. 04 & 08 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

211 ITR 0035\nPenalty under s.271(1)(c)—Concealment—Assessee making\nclaims for deductions for development rebate, depreciation,\ninterest and guarantee commission—Same disallowed by ITO—\nTribunal holding that claims of assessee, though rejected,\nwere bona fide-Same finding of fact—No case for penalty for\nconcealment is made out.\n(2) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RELIANCE\nPETROPRODUCTS

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. KRISHNA BUILHOME PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 28.03.2010. While framing the assessment, the AO made addition on account of disallowance out of construction expenses of Rs. 1,71,782/-, disallowance out of repair and maintenance expenses of Rs. 2,45,211