M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

iii) MarvwanjeeCama Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITORange-20(2)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon"ble High Court of Gujarat in the case

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

iii) MarvwanjeeCama Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITORange-20(2)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon"ble High Court of Gujarat in the case

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

iii) MarvwanjeeCama Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITORange-20(2)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon"ble High Court of Gujarat in the case

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

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

TRANSINDIA NONWOVENS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

68,900/-based on the ROI and the information contained therein. Hence, the AO rightly invoked provisions of S.143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and made the adjustment for such incorrect claim made by the assessee. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR for the assessee

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, we are constrained to remand the matter back to his file to examine the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Revenue has challenged the action of the Id CIT(A) in curtailing disallowance out of interest paid to Rs.70,23,000/- (originally confirmed at Rs.79.76 lakhs) as against

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, we are constrained to remand the matter back to his file to examine the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Revenue has challenged the action of the Id CIT(A) in curtailing disallowance out of interest paid to Rs.70,23,000/- (originally confirmed at Rs.79.76 lakhs) as against

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, we are constrained to remand the matter back to his file to examine the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Revenue has challenged the action of the Id CIT(A) in curtailing disallowance out of interest paid to Rs.70,23,000/- (originally confirmed at Rs.79.76 lakhs) as against

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, 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)

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh

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

section\n36(1)(iii) of the Act, we are constrained to remand the matter back to his file to\nexamine the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the\nassessee.\nThe Revenue has challenged the action of the Id CIT(A) in curtailing\ndisallowance out of interest paid to Rs.70,23,000/- (originally confirmed at\nRs.79.76 lakhs) as against

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

section\n36(1)(iii) of the Act, we are constrained to remand the matter back to his file to\nexamine the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the\nassessee.\nThe Revenue has challenged the action of the Id CIT(A) in curtailing\ndisallowance out of interest paid to Rs.70,23,000/- (originally confirmed at\nRs.79.76 lakhs) as against

ACIT, KOTA vs. SHIV AGREVO LTD., BARAN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

36(1)(iii) being diversion of higher interest bearing loan to sister concerns at lower rate of interest; iv. the appellant craves liberty to raise additional ground and to modify/amend the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring income

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

68,90,955/- 113 22 2007-08 (1,10,85,390) 96,08,164/- &117 6,000/- 2,06,57,878/- 95,72,490/- 121&126 27 2008-09 (1,36,88,648) 1,09,52,068/- 9,738/- 2,51,64,779/- 1,14,76,130/- 129&133 32 2009-10 (1,66,00,101) 1

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

68,90,955/- 113 22 2007-08 (1,10,85,390) 96,08,164/- &117 6,000/- 2,06,57,878/- 95,72,490/- 121&126 27 2008-09 (1,36,88,648) 1,09,52,068/- 9,738/- 2,51,64,779/- 1,14,76,130/- 129&133 32 2009-10 (1,66,00,101) 1

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

68,90,955/- 113 22 2007-08 (1,10,85,390) 96,08,164/- &117 6,000/- 2,06,57,878/- 95,72,490/- 121&126 27 2008-09 (1,36,88,648) 1,09,52,068/- 9,738/- 2,51,64,779/- 1,14,76,130/- 129&133 32 2009-10 (1,66,00,101) 1