SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

143(3) dated 31/10/2016, by making an\naddition of Rs. 1,26,87,868 under section 43 CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961,\nbeing the difference in the value/sale consideration of the of property as\nshown by the assessee at Rs.1,51,00,000/- and value adopted by the Sub-\nRegistrar for stamp duty purposes at Rs. 2

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

section 143(3) passed by ITO, Ward-5 without issuing notice under\nsection 143(2) and only in pursuance with notice issued by ITO, Ward- 4,\nwho did not enjoy jurisdiction over assessee, was null and void.\nThe Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata the case of Jigna Chetan Mehta v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle-33, Kolkata decided

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued on 25/08/2016. The A.O. after making enquiry and considering the details available with him assessed total income of assessee at Rs. 2,63,59,658/- by making various additions. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before

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)

TDS u/s 194C was deducted towards rendering, managing and 36 Career Point Limited, Kota. maintaining services by the assessee firm. Consequently, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee firm and assessed the income under the head ‘’Income from Business and Profession’’. However, ld. PCIT while invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act erred in placing a restrictive

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

2) Jaipur, dated March 30, 2023, for the assessment year 2018-19. The PCIT assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming the Assessing Officer's (AO) order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The case involves issues related to disallowance under Section 14A, interest on delayed TDS payment, and excess MAT credit.", "held

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

143(1) on 29.05.2023 by raising a demand of Rs. 2,61,710/- (PB page 26-42) after disallowing TDS credit claimed to the extent of Rs. 2,09,560/- by invoking Rule 37BA TDS claimed in ITR under various sections

HIMANSHU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

2 of the assessee, the facts of the present case are that the assessee is a Doctor. For 3 years, the assessee did his internship with Medanta Hospital. Consequently, the assessee received the stipend for the same and the hospital deducted TDS on such payment. As per the case of the assessee, the payment of stipend is exempt as income

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)

143(3B) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal; “1. The order passed u/s 263 is bad in law as well as on the facts of the present case and hence the same may please be quashed. 2. The ld. PCIT erred in law as well as on the facts

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

143(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

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

143(3)", "Section 144B", "Section 263", "Section 194A", "Section 195", "Section 115BBD", "Section 90(2)"], "issues": "1. Whether the PCIT correctly invoked powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether TDS

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

TDS u/s. 194C of the act\nwerereceived as contract receipts for removal of solid waste and the same was\nconsidered as violative of provision of section 2(15) of the Act. The second part of\nthe notice was that the assessee has advanced a sum of Rs. 2,25,68,932/- to the\nperson covered

SOURABH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT,JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

143(2) dated 28.09.2019 that “2. While acknowledging the care and diligence you may have taken in preparing the return, there are certain issues which need further clarification, for which your return of Income has been selected for limited scrutiny and such issues are as under: S. No. Issues i. Business Expenses.” Accordingly, the ld. AO completed the subjected assessment

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

143(2) dated 23.09.2019 along with its\nreply dated 09.10.2019 and acknowledgement before Ld.\nAO.\n2-6\n3.\nCopy of notice u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 along with its\nreply dated on 23.02.2021 before Id. AO.\n7-11\n4.\nCoy of written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) dated\n19.08.2024 along with the acknowledgment\n12-19\n5.\nCopy

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

143(3) was passed with due application of mind. Grounds No.1, 2, & 3 are taken together and discussed hereunder :- In this case, the Learned PCIT has passed order under section 263 on 21/03/2023 setting aside the order of the learned Assessing Officer passed on 24/3/2021. While passing the order u/s 263, the Learned PCIT has specified the following items

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

TDS of Rs.21,732/-. The impugned order thus, to this\nextent in nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be\nquashed.\n6. Rs.6,35,00,000/-: The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an issue for obtaining new loans during the\nimpugned previous year of Rs.6,35,00,000/-. The impugned order thus

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)

143(2) of the Act had raised an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of AO within 30 days as mandated by Section 124(3) of the said Act. The record further discloses that she had also made request for change of address/migration of PAN to Bangalore on the basis of her residence/place of profession. The address was changed

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

section 143(2) was issued on 18.10.2010 i.e. only after 5 months. Therefore, it cannot be said that revised return was filed voluntarily by assessee. 2.3.2 Further, Assessing Officer in assessment order initiated penalty by specifically mentioning that assessee has concealed income and finally imposed penalty on concealment of income. This shows the clear finding on Assessing Officer's part