DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

14A of the Act of Rs. 1250/- is unwarranted. Accordingly, the same is deleted and grounds No. 3 to 10 of appeals are allowed.” There is no dispute that the assessee’s own interest free fund was many times more than the investment made for both the assessment years to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- for assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

14A of the Act of Rs. 1250/- is unwarranted. Accordingly, the same is deleted and grounds No. 3 to 10 of appeals are allowed.” There is no dispute that the assessee’s own interest free fund was many times more than the investment made for both the assessment years to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- for assessment year

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

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 28. The correctness of the claim of the Assessee for the purpose of Section 14A

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

reassess under section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or\notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for\nany assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\n\nThat the heading of section 14A

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

reassess under section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or\notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for\nany assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\n\nThat the heading of section 14A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

reassessment can be made." 32 DCIT vs. M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. CIT VS. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del) (HC) "Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under s. 1534 only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed

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)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

reassessment order: 15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,83,09,666/- on interest income (including penal interest income Rs. 8,83,09,666/- and other income

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

reassessment order: 15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,83,09,666/- on interest income (including penal interest income Rs. 8,83,09,666/- and other income

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

reassessment order: 15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,83,09,666/- on interest income (including penal interest income Rs. 8,83,09,666/- and other income

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

reassessment order: 15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,83,09,666/- on interest income (including penal interest income Rs. 8,83,09,666/- and other income

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

reassessment order: 15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,83,09,666/- on interest income (including penal interest income Rs. 8,83,09,666/- and other income

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

reassessment order: 15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,83,09,666/- on interest income (including penal interest income Rs. 8,83,09,666/- and other income

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

reassessment order: 15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,83,09,666/- on interest income (including penal interest income Rs. 8,83,09,666/- and other income

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

reassessment order: 15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,83,09,666/- on interest income (including penal interest income Rs. 8,83,09,666/- and other income

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

reassessment order: 15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,83,09,666/- on interest income (including penal interest income Rs. 8,83,09,666/- and other income

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)

Reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order: Further clause (6) sub clause (a) to sec 270A further defines UNDER-REPORTED INCOME, for the purpose of this Section Shall not Include- The amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner

SAURABH AGROTECH (P) LTD ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the ld Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-IV, Jaipur has erred in confirming the same by not deciding the issue on merit, though all the material and submissions were before him. 3. That the Id. Assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case