RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

250 dated 06.02.2025 by treating the fresh unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 2,01,92,401/- taken by the appellant during the financial year 2016-17 under consideration as un-explained by upholding invoking the provisions of section 68 and determining the tax demand under section 115BBE of the Act by the Ld. Assessing Officer without considering the submission made

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS. 5.1 At the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) issued various hearing notices under section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for providing

JAGDISH CHANDRA SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merits. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) within two months

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)

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, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. ALWAR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., ALWAR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

250 read with section 251 of the Act.” 16 ITA No. 634 & CO. No. 7/JPR/2023 ACIT vs. Alwar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari sangh Ltd. 7. The Revenue by aggrieved from the findings of the ld. CIT(A) preferred this appeal and since the appeal of the assessee was allowed in part the assessee has also preferred the cross objection

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)

TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

RADHAKISHAN 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)

TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 250(4) of the Act. Reminders were sent to the Ld. AO and Range\nHead on 29.12.2023 and 25.01.2024. The Ld. PCIT was also requested to expedite the\nremand report via communications dated 07.03.2024 and 26.03.2024. However, the\nremand report is still pending, and no adjournments were sought by the Ld. AO. In view of\nthe above, the appeal

PARADISE INFRASTRUCTURE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Learned Ao.

TDS could not be discharged by the assessee, therefore, it further establishes the violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194A of the Act, the 30% of interest expenditure amount to Rs. 27,132/- (30% of 90,441/-) was hereby disallowed 5 Paradise Infrastructure vs. ACIT

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

250 dated 24.03.2025 and dismissed the appeal, which was received by the Appellant Company on or around 25.03.3035 through the registered email address. 5. That our consultant Advocate Dinesh Sharma initially opined that since the CIT (A) had dismissed the appeal as “not seriously pursued” rather than on merits, there might be scope for filing revision u/s 264 before

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

250/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 22.09.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee. Notices u/s 142(1) along with query letter dated 05.10.2019, 24.11.2019, 14.12.2019 were issued and duly served

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act” ). 2. Vide impugned order, Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 23.12.2019. 2 Derewala Industries Limited vs. ACIT/DCIT 3. As per said assessment order, the Assessing Officer assessed total loss of the assessee at Rs. 4,48,87,707/-, after disallowing

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

Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) and under the Notification No. S.O. 710 dated 16-02-1970. • Interest paid to Foreign Banks amounting to Rs. 1,81,37,163: With respect to this it is humbly submitted that Rs. 1,81,37,163 was the amount of interest which was paid to the foreign banks and TDS was duly deducted

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- ITA NO. 591/JP/2023 AY 2016-17 : 1. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal by holding that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- ITA NO. 591/JP/2023 AY 2016-17 : 1. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal by holding that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- ITA NO. 591/JP/2023 AY 2016-17 : 1. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal by holding that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 CTR (HP) 113: Limitation for initiating proceedings under section 201. Even if no period of limitation is prescribed, the statutory power must be exercised within reasonable period. This reasonable period, taking into consideration the various provisions of IT Act has been held to be four years in number of cases. Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that since notices

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

section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the\n assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal\n:-\n\"1. Under the facts and circumstances the ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating the\nassessment proceedings against the SBBJ (A non-existent). The action of the ld. AO\nis illegal and therefore deserves

STATE BANK OF INDIA,NEHRU PALACE, TONK ROAD vs. ACIT, DCIT-TDS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. AO erred in initiating the proceedings against the bank as the spot verification has been done in 2 State Bank of India, Jaipur. the present case without

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

section 145 need not have been invoked and the addition for purchases as bogus was wrong as the consumption stood fully proved and the existence of selling parties could not be denied. It upheld the basis of valuation of closing stock of work-in-progress and hence deleted the additions of Rs. 1,48,93,286 made