PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALASANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

capital in relevant year and AO passed assessment order and accepted return filed by assessee after examining issue regarding increase in capital account as assessee had credited his capital account with agricultural income and capital gain from sale of flat—Assessee has reflected that same in its capital account—Further in response to letter issued by AO during assessment proceedings

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALSANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

capital in relevant year and AO passed assessment order and accepted return filed by assessee after examining issue regarding increase in capital account as assessee had credited his capital account with agricultural income and capital gain from sale of flat—Assessee has reflected that same in its capital account—Further in response to letter issued by AO during assessment proceedings

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

2) Section 119 of\r\nthe Income Tax Act for returns of income claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act\r\nfor various assessment years from AY 2018-19 to AY 2022-23- Reg.\"\r\nWe find from the available records that the assessment in the case of the\r\nassessee had been completed but the assessee was unable

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,11,779/- i.e. 3 % of Rs. 70,59,315/- was also added to the income of the assessee as commission paid as per provision of section 69C of the Act. 6 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gain of Rs. 82,28,577/- in purchase of new residential flat from M/s Nyati Builders purchase of furniture, house hold 12 Sajjad Ali vs DCIT (intl.), Jaipur items, Interior and brokerage etc., however, it is seen that plain reading of provisions of section 2(14) states that furniture and house hold expenses are not part of capital assets, thus

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital is applied only in acquiring fixed assets\nrequired for conducting its business. All of these facts show that the assessee is acting\nstrictly within its objectives, for mutual benefit, and not for profit by way of some\nexternal or speculative venture.\n9.3 During the assessment years in question (A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17), the society\ndeclared substantial

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital is applied only in acquiring fixed assets\nrequired for conducting its business. All of these facts show that the assessee is acting\nstrictly within its objectives, for mutual benefit, and not for profit by way of some\nexternal or speculative venture.\n9.3 During the assessment years in question (A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17), the society\ndeclared substantial

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital is applied only in acquiring fixed assets\nrequired for conducting its business. All of these facts show that the assessee is acting\nstrictly within its objectives, for mutual benefit, and not for profit by way of some\nexternal or speculative venture.\n9.3 During the assessment years in question (A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17), the society\ndeclared substantial

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital is applied only in acquiring fixed assets\nrequired for conducting its business. All of these facts show that the assessee is acting\nstrictly within its objectives, for mutual benefit, and not for profit by way of some\nexternal or speculative venture.\n\n9.3 During the assessment years in question (A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17), the society\ndeclared

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

gains. At the same time, new period 7 Om Infra Limited vs. DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur of 10 years does not start. It is because of the reason that total period for which deduction can be allowed is capped at 10 years, inasmuch as sub-section (6) in no uncertain terms stipulates that deduction shall be not allowed

KRYA VIKRAYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED DEOLI,DEOLI TONK vs. ITO TONK, TONK

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the AO is confirmed

Bench: Him.

gains of business attributable shall be allowed as deduction. However, the cash in hand is not as elaborated by the assessee in his reply. The assessee was not exclusively engaged in marketing of agricultural produce of its members but also engaged in trading/supply of controlled and decontrolled consumer goods like sugar, wheat etc. supplied by the Government for distribution among

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RELIANCE\nPETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD.\nSUPREME COURT OF INDIA(2010) 36 DTR 0449, (2010) 230\nCTR 0320, (2010) 322 ITR 0158, (2010) 189 TAXMAN 0322\nA glance at the provision of s.271(1)(c) would suggest that in\norder to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars\nof the income

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

80P(2)(d)\"\nCopy of order is enclosed.\n(3.3) Latest decision of this Honble Bench in the In the case of\nMahendra Singh Dhankhar HUF vs. ACIT ITA No. 265/JP/2020 Jun\n30, 2021 (2021) 62 CCH 0271 JaipurTribwhere It has been held that\n“Revision-Ordering revision where case is selected for limited\nscrutiny-Assessee firm is a real

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

2. In this regard para wise comments on paper book submitted by the assessee is as follows: Page 1-2: The assessee has submitted statement showing details of year wise investment in shares of Limited Companies. It may be noted that the assessee has provided details since FY 1992-93 till FY 2013-14. This office cannot comment

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

2. In this regard para wise comments on paper book submitted by the assessee is as follows: Page 1-2: The assessee has submitted statement showing details of year wise investment in shares of Limited Companies. It may be noted that the assessee has provided details since FY 1992-93 till FY 2013-14. This office cannot comment