DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

TDS has been paid u/s 194C, the copy of ITR\nacknowledgments have been provided, all the transaction have been carried out\nthrough the banking channels. Hence, the said expenses cannot be help to be\nbogus in nature.\nThe appellant cannot be forced/compelled to produce its parties to prove\ngenuineness of the transactions. By submitting the necessary documents, the\nappellant

PARAS KUHAD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT - 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 145. However, the appellant did not file sales register depicting that amount invoiced and amount actually received and offered to tax. The appellant filed copies of bank statement but from bank statement the invoices raised by the appellant cannot be correlated and it cannot be established that the alleged receipts are offered to tax. 5.7 In view

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC-TDS/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

204 Taxman 38 (Guj.) (HC) 7 M/s Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd. The relevant findings at Para 37, 38 & 41 is as under:- 37. To our mind the words appearing in sub-section (1) of s. 244A "comprised in a period" are significant. In cl. (b) of s. 244A(1) it is provided that the interest shall be calculated

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

204]. That NO part of Building\nand Plant & Machinery owned by M/s. Pink City Colorstones Pvt. Ltd. was\ngiven on lease/sold to M/s. Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. (SEZ Unit).\n1.7. That during the FY 2012-13 the plant and machinery was purchased by\nMahapura, Jaipur (DTA Unit) from PinkcityColourstones Pvt Ltd at WDV for a\nconsideration of Rs. 1.88 Crores

SH. VIKESH KUMAR,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, Ground No. 1

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

TDS of Rs. 2,204/- was already deducted/collected from the assessee on liquor purchase by M/s. RSBCL and as the facts even before the AO and Ld. CIT (A) are self-explanatory that the assessee was retail liquor vendor, the whole number of receipts can’t be the taxable figure. Rather the profit embedded therein only can be taxed

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

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

TDS has been made u/s. 206C of the Act. However, assessee shown sale of scrap of Rs. 2,02,58,204/- only in its profit and loss account of ITR. As such there is an under disclosure of sales of scrap by Rs. 33,39,,666/- which should have been added to the total income. She further noted from

MAYA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAIPUR

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

TDS of Rs.1,25,000 was duly deducted\nunder section 194H. Since income from Notus Tech Consulting Services Private Limited\nwas not received in the relevant AY 2023-24 but in next year i.e. was received in FY\n2023-24 and after calculating final income the assessee filed revised return on 25-12-\n2023 duly before the due date

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

TDS of\nRs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As\nper the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students.\n2.\nThe AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit\ncard bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of\nRs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

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

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

204 days in filing the appeal before us.\n5.\nITA NO. 243/JPR/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 :\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-operative Society\nduly registered under the Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Act, 1953. The\nassessee has not filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax\nAct

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

204 days in filing the appeal before us.\nITA NO. 243/JPR/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 :\n5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-operative Society\nduly registered under the Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Act, 1953. The\nassessee has not filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax\nAct

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

204 days in filing the appeal before us.\nITA NO. 243/JPR/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 :\n5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-operative Society\nduly registered under the Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Act, 1953. The\nassessee has not filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax\nAct

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

204 days in filing the appeal before us.\n\nITA NO. 243/JPR/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 :\n\n5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-operative Society\nduly registered under the Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Act, 1953. The\nassessee has not filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax\nAct

PRAMOD KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD. 6(2) , BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

Section 49(1) of the Act, the capital gains liability has to be computed by considering that the assessee held the said asset from the date it was held by the previous owner and the same analogy has also to be applied in determining the indexed cost of acquisition. iv. Judgments relied in support of the above

PRAMOD KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD. 6(2) , NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR 302005

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

Section 49(1) of the Act, the capital gains liability has to be computed by considering that the assessee held the said asset from the date it was held by the previous owner and the same analogy has also to be applied in determining the indexed cost of acquisition. iv. Judgments relied in support of the above

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 133A (6) empowered the Income Tax Authority to record the statement on oath, therefore the recording of statement u/s 131 in this case was not ultra-vires. 6 Whether facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the in other important fact that during the assessment proceedings of the assessee

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