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)

Section 263 of the I.T. Act under peculiar circumstances of this case alone. Thus keeping view the above deliberations, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” Similar proposition was upheld in the following rulings: - (i) ITAT Delhi in the case of Braham Dev Gupta v. PCIT – [2017] 88 taxmann.com 831 (ii) Bombay High Court in the case

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

88,647/- was added back to the total income of the assessee, being unexplained expenditure for the reason that the assessee was found indulging in obtaining accommodation entry of purchase of goods from bogus concern which was operated by Shri Rajendra Jain without any physical deliveries and such purchases amounting to Rs 7,54,587/- were treated as non genuine

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

88 taxmann.com 667 (Punj. & Har.)\nwherein it was held that "the amount of disallowance under Section\n14A was restricted to the amount

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

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)

section 14A r/w rule 8D worked out disallowance of Rs. 10,53,684/- and added the same in total income computed. The assessee made investment in shares of group companies amounting to Rs. 1,49,29,900(L.Y. Rs. 99,29,900) which are partly old investment carried forward from earlier years The paid up capital of assessee company

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) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) and on 16.10.2019 by the Centralized Processing Centre and determined total income at Rs. 12,88,570/-thereby making an addition of Rs. 5,28,160/- on the returned income. Ld. CIT Appeal confirmed the addition. b) Aggrieved against the intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before

ALSISAR HOTELS & RESORTS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. CIT APPEALS , CIRCLE-1 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

88,73,352/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Pvt. ltd. vs. DCIT 07.05.2020 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 79,644/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance out of expenditures 2,88,534 Total addition 5,46,950 The assessee again challenged the validity of re-opening before the AO [PB page 27-35] as well as Ld. CIT(A) along with the additions made and submitted his contentions before Ld. CIT(A). However the appeal filed was dismissed and now the assessee is before Your

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

88,811/- will be reduced from the profit of SEZ Unit and accordingly\ndeduction under section 10AA will be recomputed.\nTo the extent benefit of deduction u/s. 10AA was disallowed

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

88 ITR 192 where it is held that when two views are possible on an issue, the view in favour of the assessee has to be preferred. The Jaipur Bench which is binding and, therefore, the addition so made by Ld. A.O. by invoking section 40 (a) (ia) cannot be sustained on this plea also. The AO could have verified

PREM DEVI BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE, C-SCHEME

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

Section 115BBE of the Act. Consequently, the AO disallowed the exemption claim and added Rs. 61, 49,716/- to the assessee’s total income. Aggrieved by this, the assessee approached the NFAC, which upheld the AO's order. Aggrieved further by the order of NFAC, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. Ld. AR of the assessee before

MOTHERS EDUCATION HUB,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of Rs. 46,36,775/- u/s 40A(2)(b) of IT Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in treating the entire cash deposit during demonetization period as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and thereby enhancing the addition to 2 Mothers Education Hub, Jaipur

SETH RB MOONDHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BANI PARK ,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance is that the assessee’s professional while filing the ITR failed to punch the details correctly and made errors in punching of certain information in the Form ITR-7. Kindly see ITR page no. 1 (at paper book page no. 88 “other details” point no. C). The relevant scanned portion of the ITR is as under:- 3. Your honour

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowance of Rs. 4, 32, 88,800/- under\nExplanation 2 to section 37 of the Act ignoring that assessee has not\nclaimed

WAHID KHAN,BHIWADI vs. ITO WARD-1(2), ALWAR /DCIT CPC BENGALURU, ALWAR/CPC BENGALURU

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

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

88,536/- on account of late deposit of PF & ESI contribution of the employee’s by the assessee in the light of provision of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act by holding it deemed income and subjected to tax in the hands of the employer which in first appeal was confirmed

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)

88,011/- made in hands of the assessee. Ground No. 4 being general does not require our finding and ground No. 5 relates to the awarding cost which the assessee has not preferred any argument and therefore, the same is also not adjudicated. In the result, the appeal in ITA no. 694/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

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)

88,011/- made in hands of the assessee. Ground No. 4 being general does not require our finding and ground No. 5 relates to the awarding cost which the assessee has not preferred any argument and therefore, the same is also not adjudicated. In the result, the appeal in ITA no. 694/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

88,123/-. The Ld. A.O. asked to assessee to furnish its details and assessee submitted the copy account of term loan from Bank which stated to show interest detail of Rs. 3,63,51,274/- hence Ld. A.O. disallowed the alleged difference of Rs. 62,31,856/- invoking section