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

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

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

139 declaring income from liquor business at Rs.7,74,775/- on gross turnover of Rs.96,84,679/- (only of English Wines) by opting section 44AD of the Act. In search no documents were found relating to liquor business. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee explained that the correct turnover of liquor business is Rs.2,15,08,280/- on which

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)

139 declaring income from liquor business at Rs.7,74,775/- on gross turnover of Rs.96,84,679/- (only of English Wines) by opting section 44AD of the Act. In search no documents were found relating to liquor business. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee explained that the correct turnover of liquor business is Rs.2,15,08,280/- on which

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

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

139 declaring income from liquor business at Rs.7,74,775/- on gross turnover of Rs.96,84,679/- (only of English Wines) by opting section 44AD of the Act. In search no documents were found relating to liquor business. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee explained that the correct turnover of liquor business is Rs.2,15,08,280/- on which

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,

139 declaring income from liquor business at Rs.7,74,775/- on gross turnover of Rs.96,84,679/- (only of English Wines) by opting section 44AD of the Act. In search no documents were found relating to liquor business. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee explained that the correct turnover of liquor business is Rs.2,15,08,280/- on which

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,

139 declaring income from liquor business at Rs.7,74,775/- on gross turnover of Rs.96,84,679/- (only of English Wines) by opting section 44AD of the Act. In search no documents were found relating to liquor business. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee explained that the correct turnover of liquor business is Rs.2,15,08,280/- on which

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 (Judicial Member)

139 declaring income from liquor business at Rs.7,74,775/- on gross turnover of Rs.96,84,679/- (only of English Wines) by opting section 44AD of the Act. In search no documents were found relating to liquor business. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee explained that the correct turnover of liquor business is Rs.2,15,08,280/- on which

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

depreciation in respect of which deduction has been allowed as an\napplication of income u/s 11.\nIn view of the above, we hold that AO was not justified in denying the benefit of\nthe exemption u/s 11 of the Act and we direct the AO to compute the income in\naccordance with the provision of section 11. Ground no.6

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

depreciation in respect of which deduction has been allowed as an\napplication of income u/s 11.\nIn view of the above, we hold that AO was not justified in denying the benefit of\nthe exemption u/s 11 of the Act and we direct the AO to compute the income in\naccordance with the provision of section 11. Ground no.6

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

depreciation.\nThe assessee filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur which\nwas disposed off vide order 04-04-2018 by the Id. CIT(A). After giving the\neffect of the above order, the assessed income was reduced to\nRs.1,05,94,050/- which was as declared in the revised return of income\nfiled on 19.10.2015. Since, there

RANIWALA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The orders passed by the High Court as well as Tribunal taking a contrary view are hereby set aside and it is held that the assessee shall not be entitled

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

depreciation in respect of which deduction has been allowed as an application of income u/s 11. In view of the above, we hold that AO was not justified in denying the benefit of the exemption u/s 11 of the Act and we direct the AO to compute the income in accordance with the provision of section 11. Ground no.6

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)

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 in respect of searches made after 31.5.2003. These Sections, the applicability of which has been excluded, relate to returns, assessment and reassessment provisions. Prior to, the introduction of Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. these three Sections, there was Chapter XIV- B of the Act which took care of the assessment

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)

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 in respect of searches made after 31.5.2003. These Sections, the applicability of which has been excluded, relate to returns, assessment and reassessment provisions. Prior to, the introduction of these three Sections, there was Chapter XIV- B of the Act which took care of the assessment to be made in cases of search

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

139(4A) in order passed u/s\n143(1)(a) – without giving prior intimation\nto the assessee - Held: impugned\nadjustment was to be deleted\n12. Therefore, the action of the Id. AO(CPC) is illegal, unjustified,\narbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be\ngranted by quashing the entire such order, being illegal and void ab\ninitio

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

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

139; Accordingly, ITAT holds that the case clearly falls beyond scope of Para 4(i) of Circular No. 10/2019 and since the Assessee failed to file any application for condonation of delay under 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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed. From the perusal of the above provision, it can be concluded that the company who has opted to file its return of income u/s 115BAA of the Act cannot take the deduction