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)

144 of the Act and therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) is in violation of section 251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

TDS deducted. Total 6,26,000/- These persons are not specified persons u/s 13(2) of the Act and the advance given is also not investment/deposits referred to u/s 11(5) and thus there is no violation of section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d) of the Act. 5. The decisions relied by the AO are not applicable

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

TDS within the prescribed time\nto the Central Government. Further, the assessment in this case has been completed\nex-parte under Section 144

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2 NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

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

144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub- section (1) has been increased or reduced

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144 (best judgment assessment) based on available records. A motor vehicle purchase of Rs. 35,46,667. Commission/brokerage receipts amounting to Rs. 31,17,181 during F.Y. 2012-13. A letter under Section 133(6) was issued to Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd., from which the vehicle was purchased. Bird Automotive confirmed the sale of the car to the assessee, providing

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

144, the Assessing Officer exercising his jurisdiction cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. The assessment must proceed on judicial considerations in the light of relevant material that may be brought on record. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surjeetsingh Maheskumar (1994) 210 ITR 83 has held that in every case of best judgment, the element

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BHIWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

144 (best judgment assessment) based on available\nrecords. A motor vehicle purchase of Rs.35,46,667. Commission/brokerage\nreceipts amounting to Rs.31,17,181 during F.Y. 2012-13. A letter under Section\n133(6) was issued to Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd., from which the vehicle was\npurchased. Bird Automotive confirmed the sale of the car to the assessee,\nproviding details

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)

section 2(24)(x) of the Act. However, the assessee has itself disallowed only Rs 42,14,588/- in its computation. Thus the remaining amount Rs 2,59,71,570/- should have been disallowed by the AO. (ii) It is seen that in clause 34(a) of the audit report form 3CD the auditors have reported that the assessee

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kota has erred in not allowing 4 ITA NOS. 407(7)/JP/2014 Urban Improvement Trtust, Kota. exemption under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kota has erred in not allowing 4 ITA NOS. 407(7)/JP/2014 Urban Improvement Trtust, Kota. exemption under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while

ITO, KOTA vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kota has erred in not allowing 4 ITA NOS. 407(7)/JP/2014 Urban Improvement Trtust, Kota. exemption under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kota has erred in not allowing 4 ITA NOS. 407(7)/JP/2014 Urban Improvement Trtust, Kota. exemption under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while

ACIT, KOTA vs. URBAN IMPROVEMNT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kota has erred in not allowing 4 ITA NOS. 407(7)/JP/2014 Urban Improvement Trtust, Kota. exemption under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

section 144 of the Act. It is for the assessee to declare its results and offer its books of accounts for verification and then, it is for AO to determine whether the book results so declared are correct or not or the books of accounts have to be rejected as not depicting correct state of affairs of the assessee

SHRI RAJ KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

144 by ignoring all the evidences of TDS and deduction under chapter VIA claimed in return of income filed u/s 139(4) and simultaneously, ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the same, which is illegal, unjustified and liable to be quashed. 2 Shri Raj Kumar Maheshwari, Jaipur. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS or otherwise, was not an allowable expenditure - Held, yes [Paras 24 and 25] [In favour of revenue]" Similar observations were made by the Banglore bench of ITAT. Hon'ble ITAT held in the case of [2022] 144 taxmann.com 2 (Bangalore - Trib.) Enzen Global Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer as under- "III. Section

DCIT,INT.TAX, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

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

144 and Section 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Department in the respective appeals are as under:- DCIT (INTL. TAX), JAIPUR VS SHRI DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR ‘’I. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

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

144 and Section 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Department in the respective appeals are as under:- DCIT (INTL. TAX), JAIPUR VS SHRI DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR ‘’I. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting

MAHAVEER OIL DISTRIBUTORS,SHAHPURA JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD BEHROR, BEHROR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ for short AO]. 2 Mahaveer Oil Distributors vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “Ground 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law, Ld AO erred in taking action