DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

131 of the Act. The Assessing Officer analyzed the statement and the seized material for his satisfaction as recorded in paras 4 and 5 of the assessment order as under:- “4. In his statements, recorded during the course of search/post search proceedings, Shri Madan Mohan Gupta submitted that the following pagers of various exhibits are related to land transactions

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 32 is not applicable on charitable trusts. 2. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) Ld. CIT upheld the decision of ld. AO stating that assessment made by ld. AO is conclusive. 3. SUBMISSION: 3.1. It is submitted that claim for depreciation is very much available to charitable trusts also. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements wherein

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)

131 ITD 3-U (Mum)= 14 TTJ 338 = 9 ITTR 57; Asst. CIT v. Haryana Telecom Ltd., (2011) 133 ITD 99 (Del)= 10 ITTR 428; Asst. DIT v. Linklaters, (201433 IITR 470 (Mum); Otis~ Elevators Comp,111·} (India) ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2015) 38 ITR 631 (Mum). (4) Provisions of section 154 were inapplicable inasmuch as entire issue being debatable

RAJESH KUMAR POONIA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

131 of the IT Act, 1961 the assessee while answering question No. 10, stated that he has Rajesh Kumar Poonia vs. ACIT maintained the details of his income and expenditure in the diaries which were found and impounded during the course of survey proceedings. Thus it is clear that the assessee has not maintained regular books of accounts

RAJESH KUMAR POONIA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

131 of the IT Act, 1961 the assessee while answering question No. 10, stated that he has Rajesh Kumar Poonia vs. ACIT maintained the details of his income and expenditure in the diaries which were found and impounded during the course of survey proceedings. Thus it is clear that the assessee has not maintained regular books of accounts

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.

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based

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.

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Depreciation expenses: The assessee has claimed total expenses of Rs. 11,86,847/- under this head. During the course of assessment year 2015-16 it has been observed that the assessee's company Directors are also common Directors in other 3 company/concern namely (i) Samarpana Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as 5 M/s Kanak Varindavan Resorts Ltd. vs. ITO Manglam

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

131 of the Act. The Assessing Officer analyzed the statement and the seized material for his satisfaction as recorded in paras 4 and 5 of the assessment order as under:- Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. “4. In his statements, recorded during the course of search/post search proceedings, Shri Madan Mohan Gupta submitted that the following pagers of various exhibits

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

depreciation and interest & remuneration to partners. Assessment proceeding of AY 2014 15 has been completed by making disallowance of Rs.62,586/-u/s 40A(3) of the Act. Copy of both these assessment order is at PB 85-91. Thus, AO has examined complete books of accounts and supporting documents and after considering the same assessments were made u/s 143(3

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

depreciation and interest & remuneration to partners. Assessment proceeding of AY 2014 15 has been completed by making disallowance of Rs.62,586/-u/s 40A(3) of the Act. Copy of both these assessment order is at PB 85-91. Thus, AO has examined complete books of accounts and supporting documents and after considering the same assessments were made u/s 143(3

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)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

section 16 ITA No. 324/JP/2024 & CO No. 12/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Paradise Properties 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making the addition of Rs. 97,12,126/-by disallowing interest expenses claimed by the assessee on unsecured

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 as under- "It is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided." If a assessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed earlier than it would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 as under- "It is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided." If a assessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed earlier than it would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 as under- "It is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided." If a assessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed earlier than it would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 as under- "It is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided." If a assessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed earlier than it would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 as under- "It is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided." If a assessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed earlier than it would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising