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)

Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from

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)

Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from

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)

Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

price of property. Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- “In this case the search action took place on 02.08.2017. Appellant had filed

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

price of property.\n5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the\nassessee preferred an appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Apropos to the\ngrounds so raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the Id.\nCIT(A) is as under:-\n\"In this case the search action took place on 02.08.2017. Appellant had\nfiled his original return

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

36(1)(va). (b) appreciating that the employee contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs.2,14,97,991/- was paid by the assessee within the grace period as extended by EPFO Circular issued vide No. WSU/9(1) 2013/ Settlement/35631 dt. 08.01.2016. (c) considering that the payment of PF for the month of March of Rs.44,73,579/- was deposited

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

36(1)(va) of Rs.19,68,509 without considering \nthat the due date for depositing PF was a public holiday. \n\n5 Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred by invoking \nsection 115QA of the Act and further erred by charging additional tax of distributed \nincome in relation to buy back of shares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. The learned AO has also not allowed the benefit of registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act and not granted the exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Copy of order is placed on paper book page no. 1 to 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Learned Assessing Officer

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

1), bei Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axel weight respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of the rule 126, or in the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government, or ill the maximum total load permitted to be carned by the tyre

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

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144C(5)", "92D", "10D", "92C(3)", "92B", "92C", "115JB", "270A", "36(1)(va)", "115QA", "69C", "115QB", "10B(2)", "10C", "92", "10A" ], "issues": "The key issues involve the appropriateness of the transfer pricing

AMAR PRATAP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

36(i) (va) of the Act paid for employees' contribution to PF and ESI respectively. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/ NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 4,71,202. 4. The assessee company craves its rights to add, amend