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.

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, assessee submitted his reply explaining reason for increase in capital—However, Pr. CIT exercising jurisdiction under section 263, directed AO to make fresh assessment on issues which were not subject matter of limited scrutiny—Since

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.

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, assessee submitted his reply explaining reason for increase in capital—However, Pr. CIT exercising jurisdiction under section 263, directed AO to make fresh assessment on issues which were not subject matter of limited scrutiny—Since

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

C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes.\"\r\nno such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of this\r\nincome for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under\r\nsub-section (1) of Section 139.]\"\r\nOn a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, it transpires that sub-section

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

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

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

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

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

C. Valu\nKutty (1966) 60 ITR 239 (SC) and also 203 ITR 630 (Cal). However, the AO has not\nconfirmed to these principles.\nThus, it is a clear case of violation of the principals of natural justice hence, the impugned\nassessment kindly be restored to the file of the AO for providing an effective and\nadequate opportunity of being heard

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

C. Valu\nKutty (1966) 60 ITR 239 (SC) and also 203 ITR 630 (Cal). However, the AO has not\nconfirmed to these principles.\nThus, it is a clear case of violation of the principals of natural justice hence, the impugned\nassessment kindly be restored to the file of the AO for providing an effective and\nadequate opportunity of being heard

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

C. Valu\nKutty (1966) 60 ITR 239 (SC) and also 203 ITR 630 (Cal). However, the AO has not\nconfirmed to these principles.\nThus, it is a clear case of violation of the principals of natural justice hence, the impugned\nassessment kindly be restored to the file of the AO for providing an effective and\nadequate opportunity of being heard

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

C. Valu\nKutty (1966) 60 ITR 239 (SC) and also 203 ITR 630 (Cal). However, the AO has not\nconfirmed to these principles.\n\nThus, it is a clear case of violation of the principals of natural justice hence, the impugned\nassessment kindly be restored to the file of the AO for providing an effective and\nadequate opportunity of being

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)

c) The deduction is @ 100% of such profits and gains for first 5 Assessment Years and thereafter a deduction is permissible @ 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company). (d) Total period of deduction is 10 years, which means 100% deduction for first 5 years from the initial Assessment Year and 25% (or 30% where the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction\nor instruction issued by the Board under section 119:- There is no any\ndirection in the present case admittedly\n(d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision\nwhich is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High\nCourt or Supreme Court

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

capital infusion in the partnership firm. The income of dividend and profit of partnership firm are not included in the total income of the assessee and therefore direct expenditure incurred for making such investment cannot be allowed against the taxable income. As regards the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the earlier assessment years, we note

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

capital infusion in the partnership firm. The income of dividend and profit of partnership firm are not included in the total income of the assessee and therefore direct expenditure incurred for making such investment cannot be allowed against the taxable income. As regards the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the earlier assessment years, we note