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 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property or any part of the property is let57 and the actual rent received or receivable57 by the owner in respect thereof is in excess

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

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 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property or any part of the property is let57 and the actual rent received or receivable57 by the owner in respect thereof is in excess

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property of the electricity Board unlike the present case and is thus distinguishable. The decision in case of Taparia Tools is on the issue of allowability of revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence or spreading over a period of time. The same doesn’t 14 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. support the case

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property of the electricity Board unlike the present case and is thus distinguishable. The decision in case of Taparia Tools is on the issue of allowability of revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence or spreading over a period of time. The same doesn’t 14 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. support the case

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property of the electricity Board unlike the present case and is thus distinguishable. The decision in case of Taparia Tools is on the issue of allowability of revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence or spreading over a period of time. The same doesn’t 14 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. support the case

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)

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 for the year under

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

14A -Held, yes -Whether this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' - Held, yes - Whether further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted and how ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A was satisfied, mere reference to word 'misreporting' by revenue in penalty order to deny immunity from imposition

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

14A -Held, yes -Whether this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' - Held, yes - Whether further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted and how ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A was satisfied, mere reference to word 'misreporting' by revenue in penalty order to deny immunity from imposition

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

14A - As decided in Era\nInfrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT]Amendment to\nsection 14A of the Act which is for removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be\nretrospective.\n• Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.\n(2022) 7 TMI 1093:Whether ITAT erred in relying

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

Property sold (1/2 share). The reason granted by A.O. for such dis-allowance is “In absence of any supporting document / Evidences claim of “COST OF IMPROVEMENT” Rs 489159 is disallowed”. B. Whereas the Assessee vide reply to notice u/sec 142(1) of Act date 20.07.2023 has filed complete Details/Proof for such claim. Again on 23.08.2023 such Details/Evidence were E-Filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property during the F.Y 2011-12 to 2013-14. The re-assessment order was passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act by making addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs 90,00,385 on account of share application/premium received from M/s Agarani Credit and Finvest Pvt. Ltd.,M/s Darshan Enclave Pvt. Ltd., M/s Harsharatna Investment

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

Housing Pvt Ltd.( Refer Asst Order Para 7, Pgs 3) ii Disallowance of Rs 2001/ u/s 14A- No reference to any seized or impounded material. 32 MACRO PROPERTIES PVT LTD. VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR In making the addition at (i) above, the assessing Officer has referred to some documents however, the documents referred to are completely unrelated

KANTA AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

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

house property, capital gains and other sources. She e-filed her return of income on 27.09.2014 for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. 5,04,310/- claiming exempt Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 21,39,336/- under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

KANTA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

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

house property, capital gains and other sources. She e-filed her return of income on 27.09.2014 for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. 5,04,310/- claiming exempt Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 21,39,336/- under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

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

14A of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn partly allowed the appeal of the assessee but confirmed the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us. 4. We have gone through

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

14A read with rule 8D(2) is not justified and be deleted. 4. That the Ld. Assessing officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals), Ajmer, has further erred in considering Rs.1,50,35,287/- as Share Issue Expenses instead of Rs. 1,30,88,710/- and accordingly further erred in considering Rs. 97,95,483/- as Professional and Legal fees

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

14A read with rule 8D(2) is not justified and be deleted. 4. That the Ld. Assessing officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals), Ajmer, has further erred in considering Rs.1,50,35,287/- as Share Issue Expenses instead of Rs. 1,30,88,710/- and accordingly further erred in considering Rs. 97,95,483/- as Professional and Legal fees

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

14A read with rule 8D(2) is not justified and be deleted. 4. That the Ld. Assessing officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals), Ajmer, has further erred in considering Rs.1,50,35,287/- as Share Issue Expenses instead of Rs. 1,30,88,710/- and accordingly further erred in considering Rs. 97,95,483/- as Professional and Legal fees