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

viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made by the AO on account of rejection on Books of account in respect of Baddi Unit named Birla

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

section 14A(1), deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India. Explanation.—For the purposes

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

68 and 69C are without jurisdiction.\n\nIn the assessment order, with respect to the first addition, the learned AO has\nreferred to the following material in support of the conclusion drawn regarding the\naddition made in the assessment order: (i) Report of Compliance Officer, Bombay\nStock Exchange, Mumbai regarding details of Counter Parties/Exit Operators\n(Para No.5.3.2 of assessment

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

viii) Section 115BBE cannot be applied in the case of assesse:- As stated in the forgoing paras the whole purpose of the lower authorities in singling out the cash deposited in demonetized currency as arising out of unexplained sources and is to somehow trigger the provisions of section 115BBE read with section 68

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

Viii. It is important to mention that assessee has taken advance of Rs.16,12,270/- in F.Y. 1995-96 since then cost of shop/offices has increased many times. Now in the perspective of increase in cost of project many times (as claimed by assessee due to outstanding liability of loans) corresponding interest on amount of advance is not taken

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

Viii. It is important to mention that assessee has taken advance of Rs.16,12,270/- in F.Y. 1995-96 since then cost of shop/offices has increased many times. Now in the perspective of increase in cost of project many times (as claimed by assessee due to outstanding liability of loans) corresponding interest on amount of advance is not taken

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

Viii. It is important to mention that assessee has taken advance of Rs.16,12,270/- in F.Y. 1995-96 since then cost of shop/offices has increased many times. Now in the perspective of increase in cost of project many times (as claimed by assessee due to outstanding liability of loans) corresponding interest on amount of advance is not taken

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68,397/- was flagged on Insight portal for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 as per Risk Management Strategy of CBDT. 4.1 On the basis of above information, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 27.03.2023 and after considering the reply of the assessee, order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 17.04.2023 with prior approval of PCIT, Udaipur

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

viii) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the provision of section 115BBE appeared to be in the nature of compensatory provisions applicable to incomes, which were not recorded or correctly recorded at the first place but disclosed subsequently in the returns filed u/s 153A of the Act and therefore I find that the AO was justified

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

viii) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the provision of section 115BBE appeared to be in the nature of compensatory provisions applicable to incomes, which were not recorded or correctly recorded at the first place but disclosed subsequently in the returns filed u/s 153A of the Act and therefore I find that the AO was justified

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

36 of appeal inter- alia containing grounds of appeal, the humble appellant craves leave to make following submissions in respect of grounds of appeal for the kind consideration of the hon'ble bench: Background 1. That the appellant assessee carries on business of precious and semi- precious Stones, Gold ornaments and Jewelleryunder the name and style of M/s. Ashok Jewelsas

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

viii) It is to be noted that in the case of Vodafone India Services Ltd. 368 ITR 01 (Bom), it was held that share premium cannot be subjected to income and the department has accepted the said judgement and did not file any appeal thereof. Further, vide instruction no. 2/2015 dated 29.03.2015, the CBDT has directed as under: “Subject Acceptance

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

viii) It is to be noted that in the case of Vodafone India Services Ltd. 368 ITR 01 (Bom), it was held that share premium cannot be subjected to income and the department has accepted the said judgement and did not file any appeal thereof. Further, vide instruction no. 2/2015 dated 29.03.2015, the CBDT has directed as under: “Subject Acceptance

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

68 of the Act. The grounds raised are allowed.’’ 32 Smt. Renu Sehgal vs DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur Thus the ld. CIT(A) has relied on various decisions including the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) [2013] 36 Taxmann.com 523 as well as decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

viii) Renu T. Tharani vs. DCIT ITA no. 2333/Mum/2018-ITAT- Mumbai. (ix) Durai Murugan Kathir Anand vs. Addl CIT (2022) 443 ITR 423 (Madras) (x) Vivek N. Jajodia vs. ITO (2010) 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai) (xi) Konathala Nooku Naidu v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1 [2024] 160 taxmann.com 758 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.)[18-03-2024] [I.T.A. No.269/Viz/2023] (xii) Kailash Swaroop Agarwal

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

viii)\nCopy of Reconciliation Statement showing Sale of Scarp and TCS\n113\nS. No.\nPARTICULARS\nPAGE\nNOS.\ntransactions\n(ix)\nCopy of ledger of TDS on rent showing transactions covered u/s\n1941 of the Income Tax Act\n114\n(x)\nCopy of Order of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur bench for A.Y. 2010-11\nbearing appeal no.761/JP/2014 and 14/JP/2015\n115

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

68 of the Act. It was held that once the assessee has already included the amount of sale of Rs. 70 lacs in Profit and Loss Account and determined the income on that basis no further addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act as it would tantamount to double taxation of same income. The Assessing Officer could only