DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

40A(3) of 68329399 67994307 335092 Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Disallowance u/s 40 (a) (ia) 699228 217614 481614 of Income Tax Act, 1961 4. Addition u/s 68 of Income 7000000 7000000 0 Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged bogus share capital introduced through Kolkata based companies 5. Disallowance of expenses 5516 5516 0 naming bill premium 6. Disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of sec. 92BA of the Act, which is in relation to expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 40A. We submit that the provision of Section

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of sec. 92BA of the Act, which is in relation to expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 40A. We submit that the provision of Section

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

40A, while the non-obstante clause of Section 115JB(1) is only and only in respect of subsection (1) of Section 115JB. Further, explanation 1 below Sec. 115JB(2) defines ‘book profit’. There is no non obstantive clause in the said provisions. It is very important to note that there is no non-obstantive clause to sub-section

GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

40A(2) of the Act. At the outset we note that Section 13(1) of the Act contemplates as an exception to Section 11 and 12 of the Act so far as any part of the income of the property held Trust is used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to sub-section (3

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A; (ii) any transaction referred to in section 80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. KISHORE SINGH GEHLOT HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

price by issuing credit note in favour of the customers and after deducting charges for registration, insurance and loan processing charges. Thus, the nature of refund is expenditure on account of discount allowed to the customers for different reasons. Any refund in cash of amount exceeding Rs. 20,000/- is in violation of provisions of section 40A(3

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

transferred to theAOof theother person on the date ofrecordingofsatisfactionby the commonAO. Since, the Revenue has not producedthesatisfactionnoterecordedby the commonAOin this case, one can only presume thatsatisfactionwasrecordedimmediately prior to the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act. As per standard practice of the Department the notice u/s 153C is issued immediately after recording of satisfaction. v) Therefore, the whole

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

transferred to theAOof theother person on the date ofrecordingofsatisfactionby the commonAO. Since, the Revenue has not producedthesatisfactionnoterecordedby the commonAOin this case, one can only presume thatsatisfactionwasrecordedimmediately prior to the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act. As per standard practice of the Department the notice u/s 153C is issued immediately after recording of satisfaction. v) Therefore, the whole

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these companies are group companies and it was not difficult for them to get the extension of time. Even otherwise when the assessee was holding 77800 bonus shares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these companies are group companies and it was not difficult for them to get the extension of time. Even otherwise when the assessee was holding 77800 bonus shares

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

3. As per accounting standard 16, paragraph 18 and as per accounting slandered 10, paragraph 20, this treatment of borrowing cost by the company is not permissible. Given the fact that the project has been held up for many years, the company cannot capitalized the interest expense or the borrowing cost. Rather it has to book the borrowing cost / interest

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

40A(2)(b) of the Act, which is confirmed. However, as pointed out by the appellant in his submissions, apparently, there is a calculation mistake in the assessment order; thus, interests should have been computed on Rs.1,68,60,000/- @12% amounting to Rs.20,2,3200/-. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.20,23,200/-is confirmed instead of Rs.21

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

40A(3) of 1.T. Act. • These amounts intentionally have been shown as unpaid/sundry creditors so that payments to them can be shown in the cash book on any later date as per convenience of the assessee. • It is seen that the payments have been shown to have been made to Karigars /labourers. It is well known fact that

SHRI DEEPAK KHANNA,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A(3) the same was not subject matter of the assessment. Therefore, the ld. PCIT is travelling beyond the scope of the subjected assessment made by the AO. Without prejudice to these fact the assessee is regular tax payer and the transaction referred is excluded from the applicability of section 40(A)(3) read with 17 Shri Deepak Khanna

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall