M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

TDS under law, such (ii) If deduction under section 40A(3) of the Act is not allowed, the same would have to be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the court in the following case: 8 M/s Amrapali

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

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

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

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

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

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

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

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

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

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

M/S. SWASTIK OIL INDUSTRIES,TONK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, , JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 145(1) and if the provisions was not invoked then the estimate of profit would not possible in the eyes of law. Further, the AO made trading addition considering the yield ratio of similar business carrying out same job at same station in the same conditions. Here I am of view that if the same businesses with same

M/S. SWASTIK OIL INDUSTRIES,TONK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, , JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 145(1) and if the provisions was not invoked then the estimate of profit would not possible in the eyes of law. Further, the AO made trading addition considering the yield ratio of similar business carrying out same job at same station in the same conditions. Here I am of view that if the same businesses with same

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS u/s 194C was deducted towards rendering, managing and 36 Career Point Limited, Kota. maintaining services by the assessee firm. Consequently, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee firm and assessed the income under the head ‘’Income from Business and Profession’’. However, ld. PCIT while invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act erred in placing a restrictive

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)

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 it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by National Faceless assessment Unit [ for short AO]. 2 Lalita Devi Sharma vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the appeal of the assessee on merits and dismissing it as inadmissible