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

1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as\r\ndonation was added back to income of assessee under Section 69А—CIT(A)\r\naffirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such\r\nas with regard to claim for carry forward of depreciation

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

section 13\n(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) and was thus not entitled to any benefits as provided u/s 11\nof the Act.\n7. It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are\nsimilar to those in the immediately preceding year. As such, there is no case for\nallowing benefit of section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ANIMESH AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

RAJESH MOTORS (CARS) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the above mentioned assessee's are dismissed

1) of\nthe Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where\na return is processed at the Centre, the appeal proceedings relating\nto the processing of the return shall lie with Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] having jurisdiction over the\njurisdictional Assessing Officer” Thensitus of the CPC or the\nAssessing Office CPC is thus irrelevant

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed at the Centre, the appeal proceedings relating to the processing of the return shall lie with Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional Assessing Officer” Thensitus of the CPC or the Assessing Office CPC is thus irrelevant

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

section\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\n8.\nWe have heard both the parties and perused the materials available\non record. Vide Ground no 1 & 2 the assessee challenges the levy of\npenalty of Rs.4,04,481/-. The brief facts related to the levy of this penalty is\nthat the assessee there was an action of search and seizure action

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

1), JAIPUR assesseeand the assessee are located in the jurisdiction of Hon'bleBombay High Court, the jurisdictional High Court, for all matters pertaining to the assessee, will be Hon'ble Bombay High Court. In our considered view, it cannot be open tothe Assessing Officer CPC to take a view contrary to the view taken by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High