M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

239 ITR 775 wherein it was held as under: “9. In our opinion, the term owned as occurring in section 32(1) must be assigned a wider meaning. Any one in possession of property in his own title exercising such dominion over the property as would enable others being excluded therefrom and having right to use and occupy the property

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

239-240/Vol-2 21/1029027261(1) Above notices were duly responded by below mentioned submissions:- S. No Date of Copy at PB Submission page 5 Career Point Limited, Kota. 12th Oct 2019 ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2019- 15/Vol-1 20/1018220568(1) 09th Jan 2021 ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019- 16-17/Vol-1 20/1025356837(1) 09th Jan 2021 ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2020- 16-17/Vol-1 21/1029027261

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

disallowance u/s 80P due to not filling the ITR u/s 139(1),\r\nwhich is illegal and now it is the settled legal position of law that if no addition on\r\nthe reasons recorded has been made then no other addition can be made, for\r\nthis kindly refer following decisions:\r\n(a) In the case

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 cuke Bimal Roy Soni DCIT, 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Vs. Circle-01, Jaipur Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 cuke Bimal Roy Soni DCIT, 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Vs. Circle-01, Jaipur Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 37(1) of the Act. 22. Further, ad-hoc disallowance of operating expenditure is not warranted in light of the following cases wherein it was held that no ad-hoc disallowance of any expenditure could be made by the assessing officer without pointing out any specific inflation or unvouched expenditure. • Your Honour's kind attention is drawn

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 37(1) of the Act. 22. Further, ad-hoc disallowance of operating expenditure is not warranted in light of the following cases wherein it was held that no ad-hoc disallowance of any expenditure could be made by the assessing officer without pointing out any specific inflation or unvouched expenditure. • Your Honour's kind attention is drawn

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

disallowing the advertisement expenditure claimed by the assessee - There is nothing on record to suggest that the order of AO is not sustainable in law – the order of the CIT is set aside – Decided in favour of assessee. 22 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 29. Further it is settled law that initiation of 263 proceedings should

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

disallowance or denial of exemption or\nclaim or deduction can be made, for this kindly refer following decisions:\n(a) In the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 0343 (Raj.) he Hon'ble High\nCourt Of Rajasthan Held that It is only when, in proceedings under s.147 the AO\nassesses or reassesses any income chargeable

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

disallowance or denial of exemption or\nclaim or deduction can be made, for this kindly refer following decisions:\n(a) In the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 0343 (Raj.) he Hon'ble High\nCourt Of Rajasthan Held that It is only when, in proceedings under s.147 the AO\nassesses or reassesses any income chargeable

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

239/- Total Rs. 8, 29, 75,428/- Therefore, it is held that the assessee has utilized borrowed funds for making the above-mentioned investments in its group companies and no commercial expediency was involved in making these investments. Accordingly, disallowance of Rs. 8, 29, 75,428/- is made out of interest paid on borrowed funds. k). as mentioned in para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

239/- Total Rs. 8, 29, 75,428/- Therefore, it is held that the assessee has utilized borrowed funds for making the above-mentioned investments in its group companies and no commercial expediency was involved in making these investments. Accordingly, disallowance of Rs. 8, 29, 75,428/- is made out of interest paid on borrowed funds. k). as mentioned in para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

239/- Total Rs. 8, 29, 75,428/- Therefore, it is held that the assessee has utilized borrowed funds for making the above-mentioned investments in its group companies and no commercial expediency was involved in making these investments. Accordingly, disallowance of Rs. 8, 29, 75,428/- is made out of interest paid on borrowed funds. k). as mentioned in para

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 59/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 7/58, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Advpa 6150 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 27/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Learned C.I.T. (A) Has Erred For Not Considering The Issue For Validity Of Issue Notice U/S 148 Of I.T. Act, 1961, While There Was No Escapement Of Income On Part Of Assessee. The Initiation Of Proceedings Was Only On Behest Of I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Who Has Intimated To A.O. For Advancement Of Loan Rs.53,95,000/- Given By Assessee To Pooja Agarwal, While Concern A.O. Has Accepted Said Loan In Her Hands After Detailed Examination. Hence Initiation Of 2

disallowing claim of 80C Rs.10,000/- in spite of evidence available at (APB-20-21). The assessee has also taken additional ground, which reads as under: Additional Ground No. 1 B Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law by making addition on some other grounds, while not making any addition in the assessment order on the primary issue which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

239/-\nRs.8, 29, 75,428/-\nTherefore, it is held that the assessee has utilized borrowed funds for making the\nabove-mentioned investments in its group companies and no commercial\nexpediency was involved in making these investments. Accordingly, disallowance\nof Rs.8, 29, 75,428/- is made out of interest paid on borrowed funds.\nk). as mentioned in para 5 above

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

239/-\nRs.8, 29, 75,428/-\nTherefore, it is held that the assessee has utilized borrowed funds for making the\nabove-mentioned investments in its group companies and no commercial\nexpediency was involved in making these investments. Accordingly, disallowance\nof Rs.8, 29, 75,428/- is made out of interest paid on borrowed funds.\nk). as mentioned in para 5 above