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

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss of revenue

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss of revenue

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss of revenue

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss of revenue

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. JAGTAR SINGH,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR

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

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

section 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act” ] by the ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- 2 Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal by holding that assessee did not submit any documentary

TEJ PAL SINGH,REENGUS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NEEM KA THANA, NEEM KA THANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Me That The Capital Gain Earned On This Land Acquired By Nhai Was Exempt In Terms Of Provision Section 10 Sub-Section (37) Of The Act. He Drew My Attention To The Relevant Provision Of Section 10(37) Of The Act As Under:-

section 80C of the Act. 10 Tejpal Singh 21. The issue relates to denial of grant of deduction u/s. 80C of the Act amounting to Rs.11,020/-. Orders of the authorities below reveal that the deduction had been claimed on account of tuition fees of the assessee’s children paid by him. The deduction had been denied for want

MANISH KUMAR VIJAY,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS return filed by UIT Kota, which was rectified by the UIT and also reversed in Form 26AS of the appellant. 6.2. As mentioned above, during the pendency of the appeal, appellant was issued various notices of hearing u/s. 250 of the Act dated 03.05.2024, 27.05.2024, 01.10.2024 and vide said notices from time to time the appellant was requested

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

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

SHRI RAJ KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

80C Verifiable from Form No. 16, LIP Receipts and Bank Statement. C. TDS of Rs. 27810.00 Form No. 16 & Form No. 26AS But, assessee was unfortunate and the blunder was made departmental staff by making entries of the return in the AY 2010-11. And by this mistake, assessee suffered the demand of tax and interest by disallowing TDS credit

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

80C of the Income Tax Act 7. Under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. A.O. has erred by initiating penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who was serving in Rajasthan Police as a sub-inspector during the year under consideration

VIKRAM PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 148, showing salary income accordingly. The AO did not take cognizance of this ITR. The assessee had given the bifurcation of salary received from the two companies. As an evidence, he enclosed copy of Form-16 and annexures to Form-16 issued by the Employer. But the AO ignored these evidences which were placed on record

LATE SH. SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THROUGH L/H SMT. NIKITA DHARIWAL,DHARIWAL BHAWAN, SHASTRI MARKET, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS of Rs. 2,42,339/- allowed in the processing of return / claimed in the return.’’ 2.1 Besides the above mentioned grounds of appeal in respective assessment years (supra), the ld. AR of the assessee vide letter dated 03-03-2023 prayed for LATE SHRI SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THRU: L/H SMT NIKITA DHARIWAL VS ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA admission

NARENDRA SHARMA,DHOLPUR vs. PR.CIT, ALWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 282/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Shri Narendra Sharma, P.C.I.T. 2 Opp. Midway, Gt Road, Vs. Alwar. Dholpur. Pan No.: Afipn 1992 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

80C of Rs.1,50,000/- which was not an issue for limited scrutiny and otherwise verifiable from the material available on record and the reason for large increase in sundry creditors and direct/ indirect expenses which otherwise was examined by the AO and explained before the Ld. PCIT on which no adverse finding is given. 4. The ld. PCIT