SWASTIC OIL INDUSTRIES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

271 ITR 0132 (Delhi); Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2008] 305 ITR 0103 (Supreme Court). In the present case the addition had been made by way of adjustments, vide intimations issued u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act on dt. 17.10.2019 However, at that point of time it is undisputed fact on record that this

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTIRES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

271 ITR 0132 (Delhi); Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2008] 305 ITR 0103 (Supreme Court). In the present case the addition had been made by way of adjustments, vide intimations issued u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act on dt. 17.10.2019 However, at that point of time it is undisputed fact on record that this

LAXMAN NAINANI,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

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

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

271 ITR 0132 (Delhi); Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2008] 305 ITR 0103 (Supreme Court). In the present came the addition had been made by way of injustments, vide intimaticis sound u/s 14301) of tocomeTes Act on dt. 20.07.2020 3. Law of binding precedent: However, at that point of time is undisputed fact on record that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

va) of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily.\n7.1 That, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the disallowance of\nRs.26,773/- on account of employee’s contribution to PF and ESI, by brushing\naside the fact that employee’s contribution was deposited with a short delay from\nthe dates stipulated under the PF/ESI Act and all the sums were deposited

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)

36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 7.1 That, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.26,773/- on account of employee’s contribution to PF and ESI, by brushing aside the fact that employee’s contribution was deposited with a short delay from the dates stipulated under the PF/ESI Act and all the sums

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

va) of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily.\n7.1 That, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the disallowance of\nRs.26,773/- on account of employee’s contribution to PF and ESI, by brushing\naside the fact that employee’s contribution was deposited with a short delay from\nthe dates stipulated under the PF/ESI Act and all the sums were deposited

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961.\n9. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any\nof the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.\n5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are thatsearch\nand seizure operations under section 132(1) of the Actwere

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961.\n9. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any\nof the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.\n5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are thatsearch\nand seizure operations under section 132(1) of the Actwere

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

36(1) (va). 5 That the appellant craves to add, amend and alter the grounds before or at the time of appellate hearing.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Regional Rural bank (RRB) involved in the business of giving loans and accepting deposits from its customers to earn the business income during

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act If we take the view that a cloim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty even if he was not acting bonafide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a licence

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

271(1)(c) of the Act If we take the view that a cloim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty even if he was not acting bonafide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a licence

DAUSA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DAUSA vs. ITO WD 1, BHARATPUR

In the result both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with a amounting of Rs

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by AO, such confirmation being illogical as well as irrelevant hence deserves to be set aside. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) and AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, same being unlawful

DAUSA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DAUSA vs. ITO WD 1, BHARATPUR

In the result both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with a amounting of Rs

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by AO, such confirmation being illogical as well as irrelevant hence deserves to be set aside. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) and AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, same being unlawful