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

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

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption

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

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

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

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

TDS) on the Commission payments made to both these parties, therefore the sum of Rs. 4,81,562/- i.e.(Rs. 1,06,373/- Rs. 3,75,189/) is being disallowed In accordance with the provisions of section

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

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

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

3 CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (Para 13 to 15) 9-23 4 PCIT vs. Shreeji Prints (2021) 130 taxmann.com 294 (SC) Explanation 2363 24-28 cannot be invoked unless opportunity given to assessee (Para 5-7) 5 Shri Keshoraipatan Sahkari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. PCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

189, Industrial Area, Makumpura Extension, Ajmer are related to its trade. c) More importantly it claimed by the Director of the assessee company as well their employee Sh. Atma Ram Sharma that in page no. 45 to 59 of Exhibit-2 are advances taken in cash against the booking of Machinery which was according to him has been returned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

189, Industrial Area, Makumpura Extension, Ajmer are related to its trade. c) More importantly it claimed by the Director of the assessee company as well their employee Sh. Atma Ram Sharma that in page no. 45 to 59 of Exhibit-2 are advances taken in cash against the booking of Machinery which was according to him has been returned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

189, Industrial Area, Makumpura Extension, Ajmer are related to its trade. c) More importantly it claimed by the Director of the assessee company as well their employee Sh. Atma Ram Sharma that in page no. 45 to 59 of Exhibit-2 are advances taken in cash against the booking of Machinery which was according to him has been returned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

189, Industrial Area, Makumpura Extension, Ajmer are related to its trade. c) More importantly it claimed by the Director of the assessee company as well their employee Sh. Atma Ram Sharma that in page no. 45 to 59 of Exhibit-2 are advances taken in cash against the booking of Machinery which was according to him has been returned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

189, Industrial Area, Makumpura Extension, Ajmer are related to its trade. c) More importantly it claimed by the Director of the assessee company as well their employee Sh. Atma Ram Sharma that in page no. 45 to 59 of Exhibit-2 are advances taken in cash against the booking of Machinery which was according to him has been returned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

189, Industrial Area, Makumpura Extension, Ajmer are related to its trade. c) More importantly it claimed by the Director of the assessee company as well their employee Sh. Atma Ram Sharma that in page no. 45 to 59 of Exhibit-2 are advances taken in cash against the booking of Machinery which was according to him has been returned

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

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. Id. CIT(A)/NFAC, has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in reopening the case of the assessee under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

SH. JAGTAR SINGH,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR

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

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

section 249(3) is "sufficient cause" and not "reasonable cause" Sufficient cause' is much more stringent that the term 'reasonable cause' and even if a cause is reasonable, it has to be ascertained whether it was a sufficient cause or not. The cause given by the appellant is very general and unverifiable. If this kind of reason is accepted, then

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

section 142(1) of the Act dated 13.02.2021 was asked to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of loan transactions. The assessee submitted details and on perusal of the same ld. AO noticed that it has failed to justify the unsecured loan from the following parties. (i) Aventez Media Technology- The assessee has received loan