CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance of Rs. 35,92,45,372/- was made out of the interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds which was claimed under section

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

45 ITR(T)\n589 (Delhi Trib.)Where Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that\ndisallowance of expenditure Exempt income-No disallowance\nwas made by the assessee- Invoking the provision read with\nrule 8D(2)(ii) was held to be justified (R.8D] (AY 2009-10)\n(vii) Accordingly the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) of\nthe Act should have been

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the During the Appellant proceedings, the Appellant has submitted detailed reply reiterating the facts submitted before AO and claimed that the capital gain the transfer of original asset was taxable in the year, when the stock in trade is sold. However, conditions for claiming exemption u/s 54B are very clear about the time limits for making investment

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

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)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related against the order passed under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 66,30,268/- under section

LAL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(2), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowing the exemption us 54F amounting to Rs 34,25,398/-. Appellant prays that such exemption being duly allowable as claimed, the addition made deserves to be deleted. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law confirming the act of computation of exemption eligible us 54F by considering the deemed value (stamp duty value

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

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

disallowed by the AO which has reached finality in computing the total income of the assessee shall, for the purpose of clause (c) of this subsection (1) of section 271, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, I confirm the penalty levied by the AO of Rs. 72,45

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

disallowed u/s 54F vide order dated 28.12.2018. 9. Provisions of section 54 and 54F, as applicable in the relevant assessment year, are reproduced below for the ease of discussions: Sec. 54: Profit on sale of property used for residence. 54. 39[(1)] 40[41[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee42 being

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)

disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D can be made as the assessee has non- interest bearing funds in the shape of share capital and reserves are much more than the investment which may result exempt income. Further, the assessee has not incurred any indirect expenses to earn the exempt income and ld PCIT has not bring any material

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 2,45,637/- made u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of deduction claimed on account of payment of contribution of employees’ provident fund by brushing aside the submission that as per the provision of section

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 2,45,637/- made u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of deduction claimed on account of payment of contribution of employees’ provident fund by brushing aside the submission that as per the provision of section

RAJESH MOTORS (AUTO) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1) , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 2,45,637/- made u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of deduction claimed on account of payment of contribution of employees’ provident fund by brushing aside the submission that as per the provision of section

TRUWORTH INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D should not exceed exempt income [Dy. CIT v. Accel Frontline Ltd. [2016] 46 ITR (Trib.) 138 (Chennai)]. Addition under section 14A cannot be more than exempt income [K. Ratanchand and Co. v. I.T.O [2016] 45

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

disallowable expense. TheFinance Act 2022 has amended section 40 by inserting Explanation 3 with effectfrom 1-4-2005 to provide that the term ‘tax’ shall include and shall be deemed tohave always included any surcharge or cess. In light of the amendment effectedretrospectively, it is held that Education cess is not an allowable Expense and theadditional ground raised

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

disallowed by the AO which has reached\nfinality in computing the total income of the assessee shall, for the purpose of\nclause (c) of this subsection (1) of section 271, be deemed to represent the income\nin respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, I confirm the penalty\nlevied by the AO of Rs.72,45

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

45,13,413 + 13,05,279 (1% of annual average of opening and\nclosing balances of total investment)\n= 58,18,6692/-\nThus, the disallowance to the tune of Rs. 58,18,692/- as proposed to\nbe made by Id. PCIT by apportioning interest in the ratio of Total\nInvestments to Total Assets is not correct.\nAlso, It is held

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

45,738/- under section 40A(3) is deleted.” 35. In case of Gurdas Garg vs. CIT(A), Bathinda (supra), the matter which came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the facts of the case are pari materia to the instant case and the ratio of the 39 M/s Vijayeta Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT said

MUSTAFA KATTHAWALA,KOTA vs. DCIT ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

disallowances made in the order u/s\n147 r.w.s 144 dated 31.03.2023 are bad in law and on facts of the\ncase, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the\nsame kindly be deleted.\n2. The very action taken u/s 147 is bad in law without jurisdiction and\nbeing void ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently

AGRASEN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

Section 14A is not justified.” The SLP filed against the said judgment has been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Ahmedabad V. Sintex Industries Ltd (2018) 93 taxmann.com 24 (SC). (vii) Emtici Engineering Ltd. Versus ACIT (OSD). Anand Circle, Anand 2016 (3) TMI 186 - ITAT Ahmedabad. “It was noted from records