M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have\nbeen passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.31.03.2019 passed by AO\nis clearly barred by limitation.\n\n6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of\nincome on two issues namely disallowance

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

Disallowance u/s 1,33,200/- Addition confirmed by 40A(3) ITAT Total 38,28,001/- 5 M/s Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO In view of the items at S.No. 1 & 3 above being set-aside back to the file of the AO, the ITO, Ward 3(1) passed an order u/s 143(3)/250/set-aside

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance either in writing or in electronic mode, therefore, entire section 143(1) proceedings being invalid in law, intimation issued by CPC was to be quashed and set aside. 10. The order for processing of return passed u/s 143(1) suffers from the fundamental defect of not providing any opportunity to the assessee company. The specific legal requirement contained

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)

275-277/ Vol-2. (iii) AY 2017-18 The assessment of immediate preceding year AY 2017-18 was completed u/s 143(3) wherein no addition u/s 14A was made. The copy of assessment order for AY 2017-18 is at PB page 241-246/Vol-2. It is worthwhile to mention the investment in MF/Equities as on 31/03/2017

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in Section 143(1)(a). To this effect, the detailed written submission of the ld. AR of the assessee is reproduced as under:- GROUND NO. 1A: ADDITION MADE WITHOUT AFFORDING ANYOPPORTUNITY AS MANDATED IN PROVISO TO SECTION 143(1)(a). 1. SUBMISSION 1.1. The adjustment made while processing the return

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

275 of the Act in 271AAB of the Act with clear intention to consider the imposition of penalty judicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of expenses\non account of personal element/unverifiable expenses. The A.O. simultaneously\ninitiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. The assessee filed his\nexplanation to the said notice which was rejected by A.O. and vide impugned\npenalty order dated levied a penalty of Rs.1,00,11,335/- on assessee firm. The\npresent appeal is against said penalty imposed

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act on the fallacy of presumption that the auditor has disallowed the employee contribution to EPF /ESI. Moreover, there are contradictory judgements of the State High Courts and therefore the issue is highly debatable and as such the CPC is not authorised to disallow all claims of late payment. The question

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

section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 16.08% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.66,35,091/=. Thus your

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

section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 16.08% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.66,35,091/=. Thus your

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

section 145A r.w.s 43B the disallowance made by the AO is in accordance with the law and the decision relied upon are not applicable in the facts of the case. 17. We have heard the rival contentions, submissions and decisions relied upon by both the parties to drive home to their contentions. As the issue before us is revolving between

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

section 145A r.w.s 43B the disallowance made by the AO is in accordance with the law and the decision relied upon are not applicable in the facts of the case. 17. We have heard the rival contentions, submissions and decisions relied upon by both the parties to drive home to their contentions. As the issue before us is revolving between

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

section 145A r.w.s 43B the disallowance made by the AO is in accordance with the law and the decision relied upon are not applicable in the facts of the case. 17. We have heard the rival contentions, submissions and decisions relied upon by both the parties to drive home to their contentions. As the issue before us is revolving between

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 275(1)(c) and therefore independent of any assessment order through which the penalty might have been initiated. Therefore, the cited court case of Pr.CIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. (2017)394 ITR 312 (Del) is not applicable to the fact of the instant case. The appellant has raised the issue of reasonable cause for failure to deduct

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 40A(2) of the Act, any unreasonable expenditure is disallowable. Identical issue has been covered by the Hon'ble High Court, Punjab & Haryana in the case of Subhash Chander Malik vs. DCIT [2015] 57 taxmann.com 180 (Punjab & Haryana) wherein the Hon'ble Court, upheld the disallowance made by the AO on account of excess rent paid. Further

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

disallowances and additions. The penalty proceeding\nu/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 has been initiated on the ground that assessee\nduring the course of search in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) offered a sum of\nRs.49,50,000/- on account of investment in construction of house and\nRs.20,28,903/- on account of excess value of stock found

ACIT, NCRB BUILDING JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA REAL ESTATE PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the

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

275 of the Act in 271AAB of the Act with clear intention to consider the imposition of penalty judicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading

MAHADEV ENCLAVE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowed u/s 14A. The view so advanced by the assessee has not been considered by the PCIT on ground that circular no. 5/2014 issued by the CBDT followed by the amendment in section 14A vide finance bill 2022 the contention raised are not acceptable. The bench noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11-02-2014 relied upon

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallow the indexation and deduction claim u/s. 54F also, which the AO failed to do. 10. As discussed above, the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind and failed to invoke the applicable provisions of law. This in turn has resulted in passing of an erroneous order by the Assessing Officer in the case due to non-application of mind