RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowing any claim of the appellant until any material is brought on record." 5. After noting the above factual position, the tribunal examined the law on the subject and took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Industrial Infrastructure Development Corpn. (Gwalior) M.P. Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 90 taxmann.com 281/253 Taxman 480/403

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance and deleting the said addition of Rs.63,95,407. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of making addition of Rs. 4,24,14,300 u/s 69. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and against

ANIL KUMAR DANGAYACH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

disallowing purchases. 4. The assessee craves your indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. The assessee HUF filed its return of income on 22nd September, 2012 2. declaring total income of Rs. 3,72,450/-. The assessee is running business in the name of M/s. R.S. Gems dealing

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

1. Backgrounds of the section 40A(3)- 15 Shri Radhey Construction Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. It is submitted that the purpose of introducing s. 40A(3) was to block the loopholes so that the tax liability may not be reduced artificially by deduction of bogus and unverifiable expenditure and in this connection it is relevant to got though the relevant part

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)

1), Kannur[2012] 20 Taxmann.com 667 (Coch) 14. CBDT Instruction No. 17/2008 dated 26-11-2008 (F.No. 228/3/3008 – ITA-III) 15. CIT vs HCL Comnet Sytesm Ltd. [2008] 174 Taxman 118 SC 16. Rule of Income Tax Rules, 1962 17. CBDT Circular No.9/2006 dated 10-10-2006 18. Zenith Processing Mills Ltd. vs CIT- MANU/GJ/0049/1955 19.CBDT Circular No. 768 dated

M/S P. R. ROLLING MILLS P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

section 35(ii) & (iii) of the Act, which reads as under: Explanation- The deduction to which assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to a [research association], university, college or other institution to which clause(ii) or clause(iii) applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that, subsequent to the payment of such

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

256 (P&H – HC) wherein it was held that “…whatever may have been the intention of the lawmakers and whatever the words employed in Section 90(4) may prima facie suggest, the ground reality is that as the things stand now, this provision cannot be construed as 9 Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur. a limitation to the superiority of treaty over

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

disallowing set off of losses of company CML and made additions - High Court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessments under section 153A relying on some information not unearthed during search, assessment orders so passed were not sustainable in law - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be granted - Held, yes [Para

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

disallowing set off of losses of company CML and made additions - High Court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessments under section 153A relying on some information not unearthed during search, assessment orders so passed were not sustainable in law - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be granted - Held, yes [Para

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

disallowing set off of losses of company CML and made additions - High Court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessments under section 153A relying on some information not unearthed during search, assessment orders so passed were not sustainable in law - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be granted - Held, yes [Para

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

disallowing set off of losses of company CML and made additions - High Court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessments under section 153A relying on some information not unearthed during search, assessment orders so passed were not sustainable in law - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be granted - Held, yes [Para

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, 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. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

disallowance out of the purchases held unverifiable in the case for this year. Thus the addition is estimated and unsubstantiated addition which do not fall within the purview of Section 271 (1) (c). The assessee furnished all particulars correctly and no deficiency or mistake found therein and technically. invoking of provision of section 145 (3) is on account

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

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that "it is well ITA Nos. 1096 to 1099, 1211, 1027 & 1028/JP/2018 & 44 CO 36, 37 & 50/JP/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s Oriental Power Cables

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that "it is well ITA Nos. 1096 to 1099, 1211, 1027 & 1028/JP/2018 & 44 CO 36, 37 & 50/JP/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s Oriental Power Cables

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that "it is well ITA Nos. 1096 to 1099, 1211, 1027 & 1028/JP/2018 & 44 CO 36, 37 & 50/JP/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s Oriental Power Cables

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that "it is well ITA Nos. 1096 to 1099, 1211, 1027 & 1028/JP/2018 & 44 CO 36, 37 & 50/JP/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s Oriental Power Cables