SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action\nof the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 12,16,500.\n==End of OCR page 63==\n4. The assessee company craves its right to add, amend

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action\nof the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 12,16,500.\n63\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024\n4. The assessee

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

50C is not applicable)\". The assessee has sold\nthe property in question for a value below the value assessed for\nstamp duty. The agreement as well as the consideration for the\nproperty has been done/ received in the preceding year by banking\nmode (major payment). The immovable asset being held as stock\nin trade, section 43CA was not applicable considering

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C were made effective, i.e. 1-4-2003 - Held, yes [Paras 7, 8 and 9 ]\n[In favour of assessee]\nIn view of above, it is submitted that legislature itself provides that variation of\nupto 10% in the stamp duty value of property vis a vis actual consideration is\npermissible, whereas in the instant case difference is 8.66%, i.e. below

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Section 50C of\nthe Act.\n6.3 Ld. AO further noted that the assessee claimed expenses of Rs.9,31,742/-\n(after indexation) for the construction, payment made to the various parties. For\nthat vide notice u/s 142(1), assessee was requested to submit the PAN of the\nparties, their address and documentary evidence showing payment made. Assessee\nhas submitted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HANUMAN TUBE WELL CO., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

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

TDS has been duly deducted on the interest payments as per the Balance sheet annexures. In fact the opening Capital of Rs. 13.41 crores was sufficient for any interest free advances even if the A.O's argument is to be accepted. Hence, the disallowance made by the A.O in respect of non business assets reducing the allowable interest

RAMDAS SINGH TOMAR,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ramdas Singh Tomar M/s Om Sai Construction, Harikand Ka Pura Faraspura, Dholpur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT सुनवा

TDS against tax liability - Therefore, assessee had to return performance incentive of Rs. 4,28,750 as his income, again for assessment year 2008-09 - In that way assessment for subsequent assessment year 2008-09 was completed - Thereupon, assessee filed an appeal contending that since incentive income of Rs. 4,28,750 had already been offered by assessee as part

SHANKAR ENGINEERING WORKS FOUNDRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(2), JAIPUR

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

section 250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. Notice U/s 148 is illegal Notice U/s 148 is illegal Notice U/s 148 is illegal: Notice U/s 148 is illegal : : : The Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) has grossly erred in confirming the impugned order

PRATIMA PANWAR,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 3(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

TDS certificates and copy of statement Bank account, cash book maintained by the assessee. d) The ITR shows the source of income of the assessee as salary from Shyamlal Panwar Anandidevi Memorial Charitable Trust and MJRP University. 3 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO e) During the demonetization period assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 31,65,000/-in the bank