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

SHRI PURUSHOTTAM DAYAL JAIN,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, KOTA

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

928/- (vii) On account of difference in sundry creditors of Rs. 555/- 4. The assessee craves your indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 2. The assessee is proprietor of M/s. Shubham Trading Co. which is engaged in the business of dealer in agriculture commodities. The assessee filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI ANKUSH GUPTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 14A. In the result, ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. Regarding Ground No. 2, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has given interest free loans and advances amounting to Rs. 9,65,70,894/- and the assessee has debited interest expenses to the tune

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of PF: 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in making addition of PF payment made u/s 36(1)(va) of Rs. 19,68,509 without considering that the due date for depositing PF was a public holiday. ## Findings of the Ld. AO: Ld. assessing officer in the assessment order has relied

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

SANTOSH KUMAR TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

section 40(A)(2)(b) of I.T. Act and consequential salary was also reduced Rs. 2,55,000/- in comparison to previous year. He further argued that learned Assessing Officer himself allowed the salary paid to the relative Rs. 90,000/- in the Assessment Year 2014-15 and assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. He also submnited

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

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

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

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

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

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