ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS u/s 194C was deducted, ld. CIT(E) opined that the assessee society was carrying out activities of commercial nature i.e. activities in the nature of trade, commerce and business for consideration and with profit motive. 1.3 Income in Income and Expenditure Account from such commercial activities was calculated and it was observed that from

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

Section 11(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Act as claimed by the assessee appellant trust. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Lower Authority grossly erred in confirming the addition made by ld. assessing officer of Rs 31,177/- on account of unverifiable creditors. 6. That on the facts

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issued through ITBA Portal on 05-07-2018 and in response thereto the assessee submitted required details/ documents and on perusal of the same, the following points are emerged. 2. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act 2.1 On perusal of audited final accounts of the assessee, it has been observed that

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

2) was issued on 28.09.2019 and notice u/s 142(1) was also issued. In response to notice u/s 142(1) dated 01.01.2020, the assessee has submitted that no business activities were done during the relevant year. Regarding income from other sources, the assessee submitted that he has received interest during the financial year 2017-18 as per provision of section

ARVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL,GURGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOEM TAX DEPARTMENT

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

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

142(1) was issued online. The reply of the assessee received in response to proceeding initiated under relevant statutory notices of the Act, and 3 Arvind Kumar Agrawal vs. PCIT was examined vis-à-vis the scrutiny parameter for which the case was selected under CASS. The ld. AO completed the assessment with no adjustment to the returned income

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As per the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students. 2. The AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit card bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of Rs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

TDS of Rs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As per the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students. 2. The AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit card bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of Rs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2. Income from House Property During the course of assessment proceedings, a detailed questionnaire was issued by the AO vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 20-11-2020 seeking pin pointed queries about the nature of business activities as well as verification of such receipts. The said notice was previously issued by the AO to verify the issue in question

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

142(1) and notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 11.08.2017 which also remained unattended by the assessee. Further, a show cause letter was issued on 11.08.2017 but the same was also not responded. Finally, the AO holding that since the assessee did not comply with any of the notices issued during the assessment

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot be sustained

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot be sustained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

TDS) to the Land\nAcquisition Collector is, accordingly, set aside. However, in those\ncases where the amount has already been refunded, no interference is\ncalled for and it will be for the Income Tax Department to proceed in\naccordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act\"\nThe decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of\nMovaliyaBhikhubhaiBalabhai

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

TDS deducted. No details of office rent paid\nbalance amount of Rs.3,97,500/- furnished by the assessee.\n7.2 In this regard, it is submitted that rent has been paid by Head office, therefore\ninstead of cash, assessee has credited head office, which is evident from leger of\nrent enclosed. It is further submitted that rent ledger could

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

142 of\nExhibit 1 to Annexure-A, and Rs. 1,16,00,000 based on Pg. No. 24 and 25 of\nExhibit 2 to Annexure-A. It was submitted before us that no addition could be\nmade based on the alleged loans, as the documents were rough notes without\nsubstantive corroborative evidence. At best, any addition, if warranted, could only

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section is breached by the ld. AO. Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances, it is not at all a case where the subjected assessment order should be alleged to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. There is neither error of law nor of facts. There is no erroneous assumption

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,SHRAWASTI vs. ITO, WD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 had been issued by ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur. In compliance with the notices issued the assessee furnished written submissions online. The Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur issued notice under section 127(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 10.10.2019, proposing to transfer the assessee's case to ITO- Ward-2, Behraich if no objection

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

2) was issued electronically on 23.09.2019 & duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued 3 APM Industries Ltd vs. DCIT through ITBA/E-filing portal against which the assessee filed details and particulars as requisitioned electronically. The assessee is a domestic company by name and style ‘APM Industries Ltd.’ and is engaged in the manufacture