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)

14A of the Act worked out to be Nil as the investment had its source in cash generated from business operation. o23 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota Nothing to the contrary has been argued before us on behalf of the department. Consequently, this ground raised by the department in the two appeals

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)

14A of the Act worked out to be Nil as the investment had its source in cash generated from business operation. o23 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota Nothing to the contrary has been argued before us on behalf of the department. Consequently, this ground raised by the department in the two appeals

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)

14A of the Act worked out to be Nil as the investment had its source in cash generated from business operation. o23 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota Nothing to the contrary has been argued before us on behalf of the department. Consequently, this ground raised by the department in the two appeals

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

14A of the Act worked out\nto be Nil as the investment had its source in cash generated from business\noperation.\n023\nITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024\nChambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota\nNothing to the contrary has been argued before us on behalf of the\ndepartment. Consequently, this ground raised by the department in the two\nappeals

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

14A of the Act worked out\nto be Nil as the investment had its source in cash generated from business\noperation.\n023\nITA No. 1090, 1097 ΤΟ 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024\nChambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota\nNothing to the contrary has been argued before us on behalf of the\ndepartment. Consequently, this ground raised by the department in the two\nappeals

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 [

14A would apply even if no dividend was earned by assessee from investments in shares. 3 (iii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in restricting the addition of Rs.97,63,413/- made by the AO on account of 3 & CO No. 09/JPR/2024 DCIT vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta disallowance of interest paid

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)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

14A - As decided in Era\nInfrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT]Amendment to\nsection 14A of the Act which is for removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be\nretrospective.\n• Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.\n(2022) 7 TMI 1093:Whether ITAT erred in relying

KANTA AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

price Transfer Exempt income company (in Rs.) (in Rs.) expenses claimed u/s 10(38) (In Rs.) M/s. Unno 22,58,954/- 1,19,618/- Claimed Nil 21,39,336/- Industries Ltd. Total : 21,39,336/- During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the assessee has purchased 80 Equity shares of M/s Pinnacle Vintrade

KANTA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

price Transfer Exempt income company (in Rs.) (in Rs.) expenses claimed u/s 10(38) (In Rs.) M/s. Unno 22,58,954/- 1,19,618/- Claimed Nil 21,39,336/- Industries Ltd. Total : 21,39,336/- During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the assessee has purchased 80 Equity shares of M/s Pinnacle Vintrade

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

price', is ab- initio void as per the provisions of sec.23of the Contracts Act, 1872 and thus non- est in the eyes of law. Hence, such SBNs cannot be treated as having arisen out of a contract for sale…….” It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT as under:- “70. From the reading of the above notification, it is abundantly

AGRASEN PRIMSES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transferred the\nmoney from the normal banking channel. The report of the investigation wing\nrelied and reproduced some of the content of its is in relation to the claim of the\nunaccounted income into the claim of exempt income without payment of tax,\nwhereas the fact in this case the assessee has invested the money out of the\ndisclosed source

PREM DEVI BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE, C-SCHEME

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

14A of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 16,35,150. The return was processed under section

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

section 263 by the Commissioner proper and valid. [Para 16] (c) In the case of Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay], it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that: " ..... merely asking a question which goes to the root of the matter and not carrying it further is a case

SAURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

14A and partly sustained the disallowances u/s. 80IB made by the AO. Against that order of the ld. CIT(A) both the assessee as well as the revenue challenged that order before the Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided both appeals [ITA No. 258/JP/2015] of the assessee and [ITA No. 243/JP/2015] of the Department, vide its order dated

SOURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

14A and partly sustained the disallowances u/s. 80IB made by the AO. Against that order of the ld. CIT(A) both the assessee as well as the revenue challenged that order before the Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided both appeals [ITA No. 258/JP/2015] of the assessee and [ITA No. 243/JP/2015] of the Department, vide its order dated