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

149 for such purpose,\nthe AO could not have proceeded further with the reassessment proceedings.\nReassessment proceedings as also subsequent recovery of tax are quashed and\nset aside.\nMrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC)\nNotice under sec. 148 having been sent to an address where the assessee was\nnot residing, presumption of service cannot be drawn.\nCIT

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, with Central Bank of India and the bank the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act could be also deducted TDS

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

b) CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj), (c)\nCIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) & (d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

b) CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj), (c)\nCIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) & (d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

b) CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj), (c)\nCIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) & (d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

b) CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj), (c)\nCIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) & (d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

b) CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj), (c)\nCIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) & (d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

b) or clause (c) of sub- section (1), the books of account or other documents, or any money, 43 ITA No. 94 & CO. No. 22/JPR/2025 Smt. Kamla Prabha L/h Late Sh. Gopal Lal Ji Goswami bullion, jewelry or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this section and in sections 132A and 132B referred to as the assets) seized under

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

TDS. The assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company which is engaged in the business of providing small loans, vehicle loans, small and medium enterprises loans in rural and semi-urban areas, issuing debentures etc. It is noted from the assessment order that due to change of incumbent, notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaire was issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

B. Nanji Enterprise Ltd. v. Dy. CIT\n2017 (8) ΤΜΙ 189/[2017] 84 taxmann.com 155/249Taxman 599 (Guj.), has held\nas under:\n\n40\nITA No. 360/JPR/2025 & CO No. 19/JPR/2025\nBharat Spun Pipe and Construction Co., Jaipur.\n\n"7. It is this judgment the assessee has challenged in the present appeal.\nFrom the material on record, it can be seen

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

b) Any other order, which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper, be also passed in\nfavour of applicant-assessee.”\n3.\nDuring the course of hearing, the ld. DR not objected to assessee's\napplication for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decidethe\nissue as deem fit in the interest of justice as delay

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

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

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person\nbut no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been\nserved and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section\n(2) of section 143 has expired, or\n(c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made,\nbefore the date of receiving the books

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)

1,30,00,385/-which is chargeable to tax has escaped from assessment within the meaning of 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

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance to the tune of Rs.27,411/- made by ld.AO u/s 36(1)(va) arbitrarily

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance to the tune of Rs.27,411/- made by ld.AO u/s 36(1)(va) arbitrarily