KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

income surrendered by the assessee during the survey on account of discrepancy in cost of construction of building, discrepancy in stock and discrepancy in advances and receivables would be considered as business income and not as deemed income under section 69.” • In the case of Bajaj Sons. Ltd., the Hon’ble Chandigarh Bench of ITAT, ITA No. 1127/CHD/2019, has stated

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

income earned from Sitapura SEZ Unit I from assessment year 2010-2011 till assessment year 2019-2020. 1.5. That M/s. Pinkcity Colourstones Pvt. Ltd., Mahapura Link Road, Jaipur was mainly in the business of manufacturing of Colored Gem Stones till the FY 2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07 and the accumulated losses till AY 2006-07 were

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Income from Business and Profession" to those, who pursue corporate social responsibility projects under following sections. Section 30 provides deduction on repairs, municipal tax and insurance premiums. Section 31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of plant, machinery and furniture. Section 32 provides for depreciation

EMGEE CABLES & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 of the

depreciation amount is larger than the amount of the profits of that business, then such excess comes for absorption from the profits and gains from any other business or business, if any, carried on by the assessee. If a balance is left even thereafter, that becomes deductible from out of income

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

depreciation has been claimed on 12 SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR the building from where rental income is received. The computation of income is as under which was attached with the return of income. Income from business

R. G. COLONISERS P LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

business of civil construction on contract basis. It filed return of income on 30th September, 2011 declaring total income of Rs. 25,61,790/- on which assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 09.12.2013. The AO while completing the assessment under section 143(3) rejected the books of account by invoking the provisions

ADITYA CEMENT,BEHROR vs. ITO, BEHROR

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

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

business premises of the assessee. During survey, on account of certain discrepancies found in stock, cash, etc. the assessee surrendered an income of Rs.52,86,885/-. The assessee paid advance tax on the surrendered income and filed its ITR showing the amount surrendered as “Income from other sources”.It then went on to claim set off of depreciation

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

business income from the sale of land. They correctly adopted a method, which was fair and reasonable in arriving at a value of land as on 1.4.1974 to be notional cost of acquisition and applying the depreciated

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

Business & Profession which shows that this issue M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. was already examined during the assessment proceedings and during the course of assessment proceedings the ld. AO was in conscious view that no deemed rental should be taxed on unsold offices held as stock in trade. In this regard the reliance is placed on the following

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

Business & Profession which shows that this issue M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. was already examined during the assessment proceedings and during the course of assessment proceedings the ld. AO was in conscious view that no deemed rental should be taxed on unsold offices held as stock in trade. In this regard the reliance is placed on the following

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

business & profession. 19 Yuwam Education Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur vs. DCIT 2. The Ld. CIT(A) at Para 4.2, Pg 14 to 31 after discussing the evidentiary value of the statement recorded during survey, validity of the retraction and the various case laws with reference to the same, at Pg 30 of the order held that retraction made from the statement

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

depreciation is concerned, it is submitted that assessee was holding certain house properties and rental income therefrom was being shown under the head “Income from house property” till A.Y. 2012-13. W.e.f. Assessment Year 2013-14, assessee started showing rental income as “Business

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

depreciation is concerned, it is submitted that assessee was holding certain house properties and rental income therefrom was being shown under the head “Income from house property” till A.Y. 2012-13. W.e.f. Assessment Year 2013-14, assessee started showing rental income as “Business

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

business or profession". 6.8 In Commissioner of Income Tax vs Moonlight Builders and Developers reported in (2008) 307 ITR 197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

business or profession". 6.8 In Commissioner of Income Tax vs Moonlight Builders and Developers reported in (2008) 307 ITR 197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

business or profession". 6.8 In Commissioner of Income Tax vs Moonlight Builders and Developers reported in (2008) 307 ITR 197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

business or profession". 6.8 In Commissioner of Income Tax vs Moonlight Builders and Developers reported in (2008) 307 ITR 197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

business or profession". 6.8 In Commissioner of Income Tax vs Moonlight Builders and Developers reported in (2008) 307 ITR 197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section