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)

house property” till A.Y. 2012-13. W.e.f. Assessment Year 2013-14, assessee started showing rental income as “Business Income” and simultaneously started charging depreciation on such rented buildings. During the course of scrutiny assessment, it was stated by ld.AO that depreciation on buildings was to be charged on Written Down Value as computed in accordance with explanation to section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

9) of Section 108 therefore, once the section is omitted from the statute book, the result is it had never been passed and be considered as a law that never exists and therefore, when the assessment orders were passed in 2006, the AO was not justified in taking note of a provision which was not in the statute book

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

9) of Section 108 therefore, once the section is omitted from the statute book, the result is it had never been passed and be considered as a law that never exists and therefore, when the assessment orders were passed in 2006, the AO was not justified in taking note of a provision which was not in the statute book

AMIT COLONIZERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

property House No. 297, Above shop No. 45-46, Ghatgate Bazar, Ramganj Anaj Mandi, Jaipur from Mr. Jitendra Patni on 21.11.2011 and cash payment made by assessee amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. Since payments are above Rs. 20,000/- therefore, Section 40A(3) attracted on these payment and same is disallowed. S. No. 5:- The assessee company purchased land

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)

properties. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Modi Xerox (supra) has considered this issue in paras 17 to 19 as under: ……. 9. Thus, once the transaction of payment of rent is not found to be bogus or ingenuine, then the disallowance of the expenditure under s. 40A(2)(b) is not warranted

NATWAR LAL SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property and deduction of Rs.4,50,000/- was claimed u/s 24(a). It was held by ld. PCIT that as per the provision of section 56(2)(iii), any income by way of letting out of plant & machinery alongwith factory, if not chargeable under the head “Business & profession” than it would be chargeable to tax under the head “Income

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)

section 40A(3) of IT Act. 2. That payment was made to above seller agriculturist in cash out of available cash balance and out of bank withdrawl from bank of which details are given as below:- Date Opening cash Cash received/ Cash paid/ incurred Closing balance withdrawl from bank cash balance 1.1.2013 1424811 - - 1424811 8.2.2013 1424811 Received from Debtors

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

House Property Income and Income from\nOther Sources. In the search proceeding Id. AO vide notice u/s\n142(1) dated 03/09/2019 asked to explain the source of the cash\nloans along with supporting documentary evidences and proper\njustification for an amount of Rs.65,02,600/-. The assessee also\nrequired to provide Name, PAN and complete postal address of\nthe persons

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Housing Corporation Ltd (supra) held that assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) from the net profit for the purpose of computing “Book Profit” u/s 115JB of the Act. Chheda Electricals and Electronics (P.) Ltd -vs.- DCIT (ITA NOs. 400 & 668/Pune/2018 dated 04-05-2022) In the said case, the assessee was claiming deduction u/s 80IC

SHRI NARESH KUMAR LUHADIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property. The assessee filed his return of income on 23.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 70,90,920/-. The AO noted that the assessee has taken loans from related parties @ 18% whereas the other loans were taken from unrelated parties at lower rates. Accordingly, the AO restricted the payment of interest to the related parties at 15% per annum

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

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

property of the Government . The L'd CIT(Appeals) further erred in allowing only Rs. 38,31,989/- by spreading the expenditure over a period of 5 years as on the basis of "long term benefit" accruing to the assessee. Since the expenditure is revenue in nature and hence the addition of balance maintained of Rs.1,53,27.956/- should

JCIT, RANG-2, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED, KOTA

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

property of the Government . The L'd CIT(Appeals) further erred in allowing only Rs. 38,31,989/- by spreading the expenditure over a period of 5 years as on the basis of "long term benefit" accruing to the assessee. Since the expenditure is revenue in nature and hence the addition of balance maintained of Rs.1,53,27.956/- should

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

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

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

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

9 TMI 157 has held: A reference to the provisions of section 263 of the Act shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exercised if the Commissioner of Income-tax finds that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Mere audit objection and because a different view could be taken

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)

property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained

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

property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained