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

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

48 of the Act and also referred decision. In this regard I humbly submits as under: - a. It is submitted that during the assessment proceeding the appellant had explained with evidences that the applicant had acquired the legal rights and interest on such flat on 1st December, 2009 through allotment letter. Therefore, the index cost of acquisition was considered

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA ,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

sections 09, 17a139.44,48 and 49-B. d) To prevent discharging of environment pollutant and in case of violation impose penalty. e) To prevent causing explosion likely to endanger wild life. मूलो f) To prevent for pollution of stream of DEPARTMENT or well. Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

sections 09, 17a139.44,48 and 49-B. d) To prevent discharging of environment pollutant and in case of violation impose penalty. e) To prevent causing explosion likely to endanger wild life. मूलो f) To prevent for pollution of stream of DEPARTMENT or well. Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

sections 09, 17a139.44,48 and 49-B. d) To prevent discharging of environment pollutant and in case of violation impose penalty. e) To prevent causing explosion likely to endanger wild life. मूलो f) To prevent for pollution of stream of DEPARTMENT or well. Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

sections 09, 17a139.44,48 and 49-B. d) To prevent discharging of environment pollutant and in case of violation impose penalty. e) To prevent causing explosion likely to endanger wild life. मूलो f) To prevent for pollution of stream of DEPARTMENT or well. Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR, TIGER PROJECT SARISKA (LOCAL AUTHORITY) ,SARISKA, ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

sections 09, 17a139.44,48 and 49-B. d) To prevent discharging of environment pollutant and in case of violation impose penalty. e) To prevent causing explosion likely to endanger wild life. मूलो f) To prevent for pollution of stream of DEPARTMENT or well. Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

sections 09, 17a139.44,48 and 49-B. d) To prevent discharging of environment pollutant and in case of violation impose penalty. e) To prevent causing explosion likely to endanger wild life. मूलो f) To prevent for pollution of stream of DEPARTMENT or well. Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

sections 09, 17a139.44,48 and 49-B. d) To prevent discharging of environment pollutant and in case of violation impose penalty. e) To prevent causing explosion likely to endanger wild life. मूलो f) To prevent for pollution of stream of DEPARTMENT or well. Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

sections 09, 17a139.44,48 and 49-B. d) To prevent discharging of environment pollutant and in case of violation impose penalty. e) To prevent causing explosion likely to endanger wild life. मूलो f) To prevent for pollution of stream of DEPARTMENT or well. Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS

SAURYA URJA COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 143(1) (a) speaks about computation of total\nincome or loss after making the adjustments provided therein. Further the first\nproviso provides for prior intimation in case of such adjustment to the total\nincome. In the case of the appellant, the income returned was accepted u/s\n143(1). Thus, there was no adjustment made by CPC to the returned

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

section 263 by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, which has widened the powers of CIT to revise the already completed assessment. In the present case ld. PCIT has taken shelter of clause (a) and (b) of the same, which reads as under: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

48 EPIP, Jaipur. Jewellery Zone, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJCS 4492 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby : Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing 14/09/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

48 EPIP, Jaipur. Jewellery Zone, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJCS 4492 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby : Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing 14/09/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

48,18,150/-, M/s May Fair Enterprises amounting to Rs. 31,54,532/- and M/s United Spritis Ltd., amounting to Rs. 1,51,60,427/- during the period under consideration, which are covered under the provisions of section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 and had failed to deduct the TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

48,18,150/-, M/s May Fair Enterprises amounting to Rs. 31,54,532/- and M/s United Spritis Ltd., amounting to Rs. 1,51,60,427/- during the period under consideration, which are covered under the provisions of section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 and had failed to deduct the TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

48,18,150/-, M/s May Fair Enterprises amounting to Rs. 31,54,532/- and M/s United Spritis Ltd., amounting to Rs. 1,51,60,427/- during the period under consideration, which are covered under the provisions of section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 and had failed to deduct the TDS

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 42,00,400 was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the Appellant. Details of various documents filed during the course of assessment proceedings is as under: 11. Vide submission dated 30 January 2023 (PB 7-9), the Appellant submitted the following details: Particulars PB no Remarks Letter dated 7 10-13 The Appellant expressed