RAJESH GUPTA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

80C in his order dated 26.10.2022. 7. Now the appellant filed an appeal before your honour against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and I submit my written submission before your good self. Submissions: 8. The World Health Organization often organizes medical camps and meetings for smoothly functioning its objectives regarding medical facility improvement in the country. The appellant

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.

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

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.

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

SHRI SHANKAR SINGH SHERAWAT,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is mandatory for initiation of proceedings and the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds. Therefore, the grounds has to be specifically stated in the show cause notice so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. The Assessing Officer while ensuing the notice has to come

SHRI KAILASH CHAND JAT,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is mandatory for initiation of proceedings and the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds. Therefore, the grounds has to be specifically stated in the show cause notice so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. The Assessing Officer while ensuing the notice has to come

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

80C, Cash deposit and credit in bank account, to be allowed. In such a situation, it is for the appellant to furnish submissions with relevant evidence(s), case laws, if any, to support the claim. The 'burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. In this case, it is the appellant who has made the claim

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,55,68,397/- was flagged on Insight portal for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 as per Risk Management Strategy of CBDT. 4.1 On the basis of above information, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 27.03.2023 and after considering the reply of the assessee, order u/s 148A(d) was passed

GIRIRAJ PRASAD GOYAL,TONK vs. ITO TONK, TONK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

Section 132 (4) of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal’s view that only the basis of such retracted statement, addition could not be justified without any other material admissible in evidence, warrants no interference asit is not a substantial question of law. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Harjeev Aggarwal reported