JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

119 of the Act dated 06.09.2021 provided exclusions to section 144B of the Act. Thus, in view of the above background, pending assessment proceedings were taken further. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act seeking details/justification/explanation was issued on 10.09.2021. This notice was sent through ITBA on the given e- mail Id in the latest ROI filed

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

119 taxmann.com 378 (Bangalore-Trib.); iv) Valencia Nutrition Ltd. v. DCIT, Bangalore (2020) 120 taxmann.com 238 (Bangalore-Trib.); v) Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. ITO, New Delhi (2019) 106 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi-Trib.); vi) Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. DCIT, Mumbai (2020) 114 taxmann.com 323 (Mumbai-Trib.); vii) Clearview Healthcare (P) Ltd. v. ITO, New Delhi (2020) 114 taxmann.com

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

section 14A(1), deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

119 of the Act, hereby clarified that for the purpose of making disallowance of ‘other sum chargeable’ u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act, the appropriate portion of the sum which is chargeable to tax under the Act shall form the basis of such disallowance and shall be the same as determined by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

119 of the present Act and this circular provided that if any such outstanding loans or advances of past years were repaid on or before June 30, 1955, they would not be taken into account in determining the tax liability of the shareholders to whom such loans or advances were given. This circular was clearly contrary to the plain language

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTIRES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

119 dated 24.09.2018. Payment of Employee State Insurance (ESI) S.N. Month of deduction Amount paid Due date of The actual date payment of payment 1 April, 2017 16121 21-05-17 17-05-17 2. May, 2017 16226 21-06-17 15-06-17 3. June, 2017 16671 15-07-17 17-07-17 4. July

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTRIES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

119 dated 24.09.2018. Payment of Employee State Insurance (ESI) S.N. Month of deduction Amount paid Due date of The actual date payment of payment 1 April, 2017 16121 21-05-17 17-05-17 2. May, 2017 16226 21-06-17 15-06-17 3. June, 2017 16671 15-07-17 17-07-17 4. July

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

119(2). Thus these shows the contradictory\napproach of the lower authorities. If the return was not valid the Id. AO could not\nhave issued the notice u/s 143(2), 142(1), returned income etc. The only reason\ngiven is not filing the ITR u/s 139(4C).\n5.2 Further in section 139(4C), it no where it has been stated

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

119(2). Thus these shows the contradictory\napproach of the lower authorities. If the return was not valid the Id. AO could not\nhave issued the notice u/s 143(2), 142(1), returned income etc. The only reason\ngiven is not filing the ITR u/s 139(4C).\n5.2 Further in section 139(4C), it no where it has been stated

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

119 of the Act could not, therefore, said to have taken away the appellate remedy. 5.7 The tribunal misdirected itself in yet another way when it observed that The Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1.4.2016, that is from assessment year 2016-17 changed the legal position. There is no such change which could be said to have altered

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

2+2=4 only. 11. Hence, reopening the case of the assessee company is nothing but the case of change of opinion which is not allowed under the law. Reliance is placed on following judgments wherein it was held that reopening on the basis of change of opinion is illegal: • Supreme Court CIT vs. Kelvinator of India

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Depreciation Claim 2. Investments/Advances/Loans 3. Refund Claim 4. Business Loss” As evident above, the complete scrutiny proceedings were initiated due to one of the reasons being ‘investments’ made by the Appellant. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Appellant vide submission dated 7 October 2019 (PB 36-45) provided the following information to the assessing officer in relation to ‘investments

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\r\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\r\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\"\r\n27. It is established principle of interpretation of statutes, that the Parliament is\r\npresumed to be not extravagant, in using the words

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

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

Section 119(2)(b) as mandated in Para 4(ii) of the said circular, the delay cannot be condoned. 4.9 In view of the above, I am of the considerate view that, since the appellant has filed Form 10B later than due date of filing of income tax return, thus it is not covered by immunity granted by Para

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption