ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 145(3) are invoked in this case and 25 % as cush purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/- from bogus concern which are operated by Shri Rajendra Jain are treated as non genuine and a sum of Rs. 7,99,999/- added back to the total income the assessee, being un explained expenditure

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. The impugned order thus, to\nthis extent is a nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves\nto be quashed.\n4. Rs.63,97,664/-1 The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an altogether new issue of the alleged\ndisallowance u/s 43B(e) of the Act on account of interest

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

36(1)(va), thus the re-opening of the assessment by\nalleging the receipts from M/s DRAIPL as bogus, for which the information had\nalready been supplied and available on record in the assessment proceedings u/s\n143(3) is nothing but reconsideration of the accepted fact and tantamount to\nchange of opinion on the same facts.\n\nIn other words

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. The learned AO has also not allowed the benefit of registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act and not granted the exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Copy of order is placed on paper book page no. 1 to 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Learned Assessing Officer

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

1), bei Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axel weight respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of the rule 126, or in the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government, or ill the maximum total load permitted to be carned by the tyre

AMAR PRATAP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 30.03.2016. 2 Amar Pratap Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has taken following grounds. “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Center ("NFAC") has erred in confirming the action

SHRIKANT SINGHANIA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20

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

36 taxmann.com 540 (Pune-Trib.). (xiii) G. Raja Gopala Rao v. DCIT, Circle-4 (1), Visakhapatnam, [2017] 78 taxmann. Com 61 (Visakhapatnam-Trib.) (xiv) CIT Vs Samir Synthetics Mill (2010) 326 ITR 410 (Guj HC). (xv) M/S Bhalchandra Trading P. Ltd. Versus Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6 (2) Mumbai 2021 (2) TMI 1095 - ITAT Mumbai. The Ld. AR further submitted