M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

capital gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression "accumulated profits" in sub-clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

capital gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression "accumulated profits" in sub-clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gains of Business or Profession from sales and services of cars. The assessee efiled its return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 at total income of Rs. 34,40,330/-. The case of assessee selected for scrutiny under CASS. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and various additions were made in the returned

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

40A(3) of the\nAct, salary has been kept at just less than 20,000/- since the same would have been liable\nto be disallowed if salary payment was greater than 20,000/- in cash. This shows that it is\na pre meditated action on the part of the assessee trust with the motive of siphoning off\nfunds for personal

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

capital loss was a preconceived design to avoid tax liability on the capital gain arising from sale of shares as well as other income. The assessee instead of transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

capital loss was a preconceived design to avoid tax liability on the capital gain arising from sale of shares as well as other income. The assessee instead of transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

40A(2)(b) of the Act and even the show cause\nnotice is silent about that.\nIn our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect\nprinciples to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly\nanalysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not\nthink that

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

gains of business or profession", (a) in the case of any assessee (ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, [rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

capital gain. M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Limited & Avas Financiers Limited 4.4 The ld. PCIT also noticed that the provision of section 43D was not applicable in assessee's case, being NBFC. In the financial statements, NPA was not categorized and depicted as per the norms laid down in RBI's master direction i.e. into substandard assets, doubtful assets

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

b) Though there was no motive of the assessee to invest the funds with an\nintention to earn the income by way of interest, it has earned the interest\non idle funds. This income has no relevance with the business activity of\nthe assessee and is not capital receipt eligible to be deducted from the\nproject cost. Funds have neither

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MAHATMA GANDHI CHARITABLE SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for Statistical purposes with no order as to cost

B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 359/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mahatma Gandhi Charitable Society cuke The DCIT (Exemptions) Vs. Circle – Jaipur for Education and Research Jaipur

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee