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

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

Section 263 of the Act. 21. As far as issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is concerned, it is humbly submitted that all the investment are made by the Assessee for earning exempt dividend income are from surplus own funds/interest free funds only. 22. Further, it is humbly submitted that, the Finance cost being interest expenditure have

SHRI RAM BABU VIJAY ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

928/- and the ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining thereof. 4. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law and facts in making addition in LTCG Rs. 1,12,643.00 and the ld. CIT (A) also erred in sustaining thereof. 5. Any other grounds at the time of hearing.” Ground No. 1 is general in nature and does not require

SHRI RAM BABU VIJAY ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

928/- and the ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining thereof. 4. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law and facts in making addition in LTCG Rs. 1,12,643.00 and the ld. CIT (A) also erred in sustaining thereof. 5. Any other grounds at the time of hearing.” Ground No. 1 is general in nature and does not require

MARVEL SUPPORT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed per ground

Section 37(1) of the Act provides that any expenditure not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expense of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head business. The AO has not pointed out any expenses claimed by the assessee

BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. DY. CIT (ACIT) CIRCLE -2 AJMER , CR BUILDING,OPP. SESSION COURT,JAIPUR ROAD ,AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbaroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, 2343 Rajasthan Patrika Building, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer – 305004 Pan No. Aaajb1164C ...... Appellant

section 80P of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 That the Ld. CTT(A)- NFAC, has erred in facts and in law in confirming disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P (2)(a)(i) of Rs. 2,11,86,64,928

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S MANGLAM BUILD DEVELOPERS LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3 of the Revenue, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’4.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order

M/S. K.D.JAIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MADANGANJ vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), AJMER

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

928/- respectively which have already been given to the Assessee Society while framing the assessment order. Further, the Assessee Society has stated that huge expenses of Rs. 50,00,000/ have been disallowed without any basis. In this regard, it is submitted that the case was selected under limited scrutiny to examine whether the large deductions against income from Other

PRECIOUS JEWELS CORPORATION,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, C-SECHME, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

928/- and based on the bias arising on account of such faulty approach, disregarding the entire cost center basis accounting supported by underlying documents having already been carried out at the time of occurrence of the transaction to reflect the true correct commercial profits of each unit considering the same as an independent Unit. [Section 10AA] 5. The learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR MIN DEV SYNDICATE LTD., JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

928/- and based on the bias arising on account of such faulty approach, disregarding the entire cost center basis accounting supported by underlying documents having already been carried out at the time of occurrence of the transaction to reflect the true correct commercial profits of each unit considering the same as an independent Unit. [Section 10AA] 5. The learned

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are nonest in law, without jurisdiction and without applying his mind. Hence, the reassessment is quashed and accordingly, I allow the legal grounds raised by the assessee. No other ground has been adjudicated as the same has not been argued by the Ld. Counsel

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

928/-. The action is unjustified, illegal or excessive and deserves to be deleted in full. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making the addition on account of profit of Rs. 8,93,428/- on account of Gopala Garments and addition of Rs. 21,15,481/- on account of Race

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

928/-. The action is unjustified, illegal or excessive and deserves to be deleted in full. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making the addition on account of profit of Rs. 8,93,428/- on account of Gopala Garments and addition of Rs. 21,15,481/- on account of Race

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

928/-. The action is unjustified, illegal or excessive and deserves to be deleted in full. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making the addition on account of profit of Rs. 8,93,428/- on account of Gopala Garments and addition of Rs. 21,15,481/- on account of Race

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

928/-. The action is unjustified, illegal or excessive and deserves to be deleted in full. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making the addition on account of profit of Rs. 8,93,428/- on account of Gopala Garments and addition of Rs. 21,15,481/- on account of Race

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

928/-. The action is unjustified, illegal or excessive and deserves to be deleted in full. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making the addition on account of profit of Rs. 8,93,428/- on account of Gopala Garments and addition of Rs. 21,15,481/- on account of Race

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

928/-. The action is unjustified, illegal or excessive and\ndeserves to be deleted in full.\n\n3. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of\nLd. A.O. in making the addition on account of profit of Rs.8,93,428/- on account of\nGopala Garments and addition of Rs.21,15,481/- on account of Race Kids

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable