M/S. RATAN CONDUCTORS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

disallowed the aforementioned payment of Interest under section 40(a) (ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 through their Assessment order dated 27.02.2015 by rejecting the submission of the assesse regarding NBFC must have been declared such interest income in their Income Tax Return along with the deposit of Tax. 6. That after the passing of the Assessment order the appellant

M/S MITTAL PHARMA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, JAIPUR

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

section w.e.f. 01.04.2015 which is to remove unintended hardship, only 30% of such amount can be disallowed by giving the effect of this amendment retrospectively. 1.3 The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in not giving cognizance to the Form 26A issued by Chartered Accountant in case of M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. holding

PARADISE INFRASTRUCTURE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Learned Ao.

Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194A of the Act, the 30% of interest expenditure amount to Rs. 27,132/- (30% of 90,441/-) was hereby disallowed 5 Paradise Infrastructure vs. ACIT and added back to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 3.2 The ld. AO noted that the balance of capital amounts of the assessee

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

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54F and considering the same u/s 54 of the Act even when in the original grounds of appeal the assessee did not mention the change in Section from Section 54F to Sec. 54. 2. The assessee revised the grounds of appeal after the remand report was submitted by the AO. On the facts

BANSAL CLASSES PVIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, revenue’s ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

46A. (iii) deleting the addition of Rs. 5,52,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 7,94,000/- made by the AO u/s 40A(2)(b) out of salary paid; (iv) deleting the addition of Rs. 4,90,07,505/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction claimed by assessee u/s 80G.” 3. In its first

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance out of expenses Rs.12,63,307/- Further the provisions of section 115BBE were invoked on the additions made u/s 68 towards the bank deposits by treating the same as unexplained. Aggrieved of the order so passed, assessee preferred appeal, which was decided vide order dated 11.3.2024 passed in appeal No. NFAC/2019- 20/10174194, whereby appeal of assessee was allowed. Present

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowed the interest in accordance with the provision of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and not as per provision of section 57(iii) of the Act as the assessee has already offered the income under the head income from business Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore or profession. The provision of section both these sections are extracted for the sake

PRADEEP GARG, AJMER,AJMER vs. ITO 2(1) AJMER , AJMER

section 271(1)(c). As a result, there was no clarity whether the\nnotice was for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income. He has filed copies of those notices. For his contention,\nassessee has relied on judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble\nSupreme Court and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account of alleged undisclosed income

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account of alleged undisclosed income

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance made u/s.40A (3) to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to decide the same de novo in the light of our above observations and discussion. Accordingly, the relevant Grounds taken by the assessee in all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT (A) is directed to give opportunity of being heard

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance made u/s.40A (3) to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to decide the same de novo in the light of our above observations and discussion. Accordingly, the relevant Grounds taken by the assessee in all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT (A) is directed to give opportunity of being heard

SANJAY MATAI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 375/Jp/2016 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Shri Sanjay Matai, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Prop.-M/S Metro Wines, Madar Ward-1(2), Gate, Ajmer. Ajmer. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Alkpm 9533 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2021 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 25/01/2016 For The A.Y. 2008-09 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Whereas On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A), Ajmer Has Grossly Erred In Not Accepting The Application Under Rule 46-A Submitted During The Course Of Appeal Proceedings Stating There In That Though Complete Details & Evidence Were Filed Before The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Which Were Not Considered Prospectively. It Is Therefore Respectfully Requested Before Your Honour That Application Under Rule 46A Of The I.T.Act,1961 Of The Appellant Deserves To Be Accepted.

Disallowance 1. Trading Addition of "Since the apparent error rectified u/s 154 as Rs.34,183/-. appealed for, hence no more comments needed, the assessee has also not pressed upon the issue." (Deleted) (PB 75) 2. Addition of "The copy of registry of property dated 17.11.2017 at Rs.5,00,000/- as Darji Mohalla, Lakhan Kotari Ajmer along with bank unexplained

DESIGN CORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

Section 250 (4) empowers the CIT (A) to make further inquiries on its own or to direct the AO to make further inquiry and to report him. The embargo put on his power u/r 46A (1) & (2) has also been loosened by sub-rule 4, which also empower the CIT (A) to direct the production of any document/the examination

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

46A the appellate authority is empowered to allow the assessee to produce additional evidence where the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence during assessment proceedings. The facts of the appellant's case are quite similar to the facts of the cases cited supra and the ratio laid down therein is squarely applicable to the instant case

M/S. OM SHIV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. Although before us, the ld. A/R submitted that there were compelling circumstances for which payments were made to the agriculturists in cash, otherwise they have refused to execute the sale deeds. In this regard the details for making the payment in cash to the respective sellers have been given in written submissions

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowance made u/s.40A (3) to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to decide the same de novo in the light of our above observations and discussion. Accordingly, the relevant Grounds taken by the assessee in all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT (A) is directed to give opportunity of being heard

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowance made u/s.40A (3) to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to decide the same de novo in the light of our above observations and discussion. Accordingly, the relevant Grounds taken by the assessee in all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT (A) is directed to give opportunity of being heard