DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

153B /143(3) of the Act. 9. Copy of the show cause notice dated 15.03.2017 issued under section 263 of 61-63 the Act. 10. Copy of the objections dated 24.03.2017 filed by the appellant to show cause 64-71 notice dated 15.03.2017 11. Copy of the show cause notice dated 29.03.2017 issued under section

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to interfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority." The onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the interest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively only for the purpose of making investments which

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively\nonly for the purpose of making investments which

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively\nonly for the purpose of making investments which

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

68 ofthe IT Act and tax is levied as per section 1158BE of the Act." 7.2 The submissions of the appellant during the appellate proceedings are reproduced as under: ‘’The appellant has stated relevant facts of the case is already reproduced in foregoing para5.2. Therefore the same is not reproducing here for the sake of brevity.’’ 8. The last

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

68 ofthe IT Act and tax is levied as per section 1158BE of the Act." 7.2 The submissions of the appellant during the appellate proceedings are reproduced as under: ‘’The appellant has stated relevant facts of the case is already reproduced in foregoing para5.2. Therefore the same is not reproducing here for the sake of brevity.’’ 8. The last

DCIT,CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PANNA LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this connection, order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. [1958] 34 ITR 130 (SC) may be studied. 6. The Appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forgo any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during

PANNA LAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this connection, order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. [1958] 34 ITR 130 (SC) may be studied. 6. The Appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forgo any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during

DILIP MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 read with section 115BE (1) (a) of I. T. Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur vide his order dated 22-03-2024 upheld the additions Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. Before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

153B of the Act of 1961. The respondent authority was fully aware of the fact that proceedings under section 153C of the Act of 1961 would be barred by limitation, therefore, recourse was taken to the provisions contained in Section 148 and Section 148A of the Act of 1961 which has no application in the present cases

CHATRU,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153B(1)(b) 2. As the issues involved in the present appeals are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven as is evident from the above chart. Both the parties heard together and are disposed off by this common order. 3.1 In ITA No. 721/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following Sh. Chatru vs. DCIT grounds:- “1. In the facts

JOSH EDUCATION FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

153B(1)(b) 2. As the issues involved in the present appeals are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven as is evident from the above chart. Both the parties heard together and are disposed off by this common order. 3.1 In ITA No. 721/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following Sh. Chatru vs. DCIT grounds:- “1. In the facts

CHATRU,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 721 to 727/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2021-2022 Shri Chatru, Nimod, Malarana Dunger, Sawai Madhpur. cuke Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle, Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BUVPC 1977 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Tarun Mittal, CA, Shri Harshit Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : MS Alka Gautam

153B(1)(b) 2. As the issues involved in the present appeals are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven as is evident from the above chart. Both the parties heard together and are disposed off by this common order. 3.1 In ITA No. 721/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following Sh. Chatru vs. DCIT grounds:- “1. In the facts

CHATRU,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153B(1)(b) 2. As the issues involved in the present appeals are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven as is evident from the above chart. Both the parties heard together and are disposed off by this common order. 3.1 In ITA No. 721/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following Sh. Chatru vs. DCIT grounds:- “1. In the facts