GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 Taxman 211 (Delhi) (Mag.) • Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. vs. ITO: 28 ITD 231 (Delhi) • Baljees vs. ACIT: 85 TTJ 543 (Chd.) / 127 Taxman 150 (Chd.) (Mag.) • Mrs. Katiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO: 100 ITD 173(Mum.) • Balram Manmani vs. ACIT: [2006] 7 SOT 368 (Lucknow) • Bagaria Products Ltd. vs. JCIT: 107 TTJ 760 (Pune)(TM) Section 14A

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

14A of Income Tax Act,1961 should be made. This fact can be easily verifiable from the Balance Sheet available before ld FAO. Ld PCIT has not specifically pointed out any credible defects in that. The ld. AO satisfied himself about the genuineness of the 27 Career Point Limited, Kota. explanation of assessee. When the legislature has empowered

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A of the Act are not applicable on the investments made\nand therefore, the order of Ld. PCIT for setting aside the assessment\norder passed by Ld. AO deserves to be cancelled/ quashed.\nIn support of above, reliance is placed on following judgements by the\nHon'ble Apex Court.\nCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited (Supreme Court)\nS. 14A

MAHADEV ENCLAVE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

14A of the Act by Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2022 is prospective in nature and cannot be treated as retrospective in nature even though the language used is “For the removal of doubts” or “deemed to have always applied”. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:- Sedco Forex International Drill

M/S. MAHALAXMI SAWS PVT. LTD., H-39, ROAD NO.2B, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SIRSI ROAD, BINDAYAKA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A and 36 (1)(iii) of the Act. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest bearing funds taken by assessee were utilized wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, in respect of which no disallowance could be made, therefore, we direct to delete the disallowance

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

68. We therefore agree with the views of the Assessing Officer that the expenditure on building of anicut over Parwan river has given a benefit of enduring nature to the assessee since the assessee has obtained assured supply of water which is being used in manufacturing process carried out by the assessee for a long period of time. However

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68. We therefore agree with the views of the Assessing Officer that the expenditure on building of anicut over Parwan river has given a benefit of enduring nature to the assessee since the assessee has obtained assured supply of water which is being used in manufacturing process carried out by the assessee for a long period of time. However

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68. We therefore agree with the views of the Assessing Officer that the expenditure on building of anicut over Parwan river has given a benefit of enduring nature to the assessee since the assessee has obtained assured supply of water which is being used in manufacturing process carried out by the assessee for a long period of time. However

RAYS POWER EXPERTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

68 was made. An addition of prior period expenses of Rs. 1,78,21,544 was made. Addition on account of Liquidated damages of Rs.2,43,04,000 was 6 Rays Power Experts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT made. Addition on account of bad debts of Rs.1,03,60,140 was made. Disallowance under section 14A

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

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

14A of the Income-tax Act. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction u/s 80IA on interest income including penal interest income and on other income. 6. (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of 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)

section 14A. Whereas, I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Oil Industries Development. Board order dated 08.02.2019 has upheld the decision of the High Court where the High Court has upheld the Tribunal Order holding that in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A of any amount was not permissible

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

68 being establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor, could not have been presumed by the Ld. Pr. CIT and consequently, he could not have expected the AO to get the same proved by the assesse to the hilt. However, no permission was sought to expend the scope of the scrutiny. The fact that the subjected amount received towards

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

68 being establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor, could not have been presumed by the Ld. Pr. CIT and consequently, he could not have expected the AO to get the same proved by the assesse to the hilt. However, no permission was sought to expend the scope of the scrutiny. The fact that the subjected amount received towards

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

68,377/- was disclosed by the assessee on its investment made in equities/MF. The investment of the assessee in the equities/MF as on 31.03.2016 was of Rs. 1,49,61,000/- and Rs. 6,47,45,423/- as on 31.03.2017. Amount of Rs. 1.20 lacs were disallowed by the assessee u/s 14A of the IT Act out of misc. expenditure

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

68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained share application money allegedly obtained by the assessee from M/s. Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Share application money by observing that the alleged investor companies M/s. Sangam

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

68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained share application money allegedly obtained by the assessee from M/s. Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Share application money by observing that the alleged investor companies M/s. Sangam

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

section 14A by inserting a non- obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from 1- 4-2022 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effects. 19 & CO No. 09/JPR/2024 DCIT vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta As the appellant has not earned any exempt income, in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High

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