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

9) clearly reveals that even\r\nunder those provisions, the restrictions placed with regard to the accrual of interest\r\non amounts assessed on an assessee iswith regard to the date of filing a return\r\nwithin the time prescribed under the IT Act. Under section 234A, however, although\r\nthe provision suggests that even a return filed beyond

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

139(1) of the Act shall be disallowed. We therefore find that both the provisions of section 195(1) as well as section 40(a)(i) of the Act talks about deduction of tax at source where the sum is chargeable under the Act. 13. As per provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act, the total income

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

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)

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 (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

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)

section 270A(9) assessee is covered and how the case related to mis reporting, it is requested that penalty imposed by ld.AO and confirmed by ld.CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.” The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a detailed paper book in 8. support of the contention so raised in the written submission. The index of the document

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)

section 270A(9) assessee is covered and how the case related to mis reporting, it is requested that penalty imposed by ld.AO and confirmed by ld.CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.” The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a detailed paper book in 8. support of the contention so raised in the written submission. The index of the document

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

139(1) on 28-09-2012 declaring\nan income of Rs.92,85,050/- which was processed u/s 143(1). A search u/s 132\nwas carried out at various business and residential premises of firm and its\npartners on 05-02-2015.\nAction of Ld. A.O.\nThe Ld. A.O. thereafter issued notice u/s 153A

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

9] The High Court has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the requirement of furnishing a declaration under section 10B(8) is mandatory, but the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed is not mandatory but is directory. The same is erroneous and contrary to the unambiguous language contained in section

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.”

9. In the present case, it is not even the case made out in the show cause notice that the agreement as contemplated by the first part of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 127 exists. The existence of such agreement between two jurisdictional Commissioners is a condition precedent for passing the order of transfer.Except for the request

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)

9,10 Office premises 1 5. Further in the statements of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, he submitted that on the above page, details w.r.t. a land transactions at Village chainpura behind entertainment Paradise, Jaipur has been recorded which was purchase by Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain resident of D-25, Lal Bahadur nagar, Jaipur, through him i.e. Shri Madan Mohan Gupta

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)

9,10 Office premises 1 5. Further in the statements of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, he submitted that on the above page, details w.r.t. a land transactions at Village chainpura behind entertainment Paradise, Jaipur has been recorded which was purchase by Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain resident of D-25, Lal Bahadur nagar, Jaipur, through him i.e. Shri Madan Mohan Gupta

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

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

139 for the A Y 2015-2016 on 31.03.2016 declaring total income at\nRs 13,37,400/-. During the year under consideration the assessee derives\nincome, from income from house property, income from capital Gain and\nincome from other sources. A copy of the return of income filed by the\nassessee is available on paper book page No...1.\nSubsequently

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

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

9 Jawaharlal Nehru Shekshanik And Samajik Sansthan vs. Exemption Jain Shwetamber Murtipujak Sangh Vs The Income Tax Learned AO (Exemption) [ITA Nos. 15 & 16/RPR/2022] - Raipur In the above case, ITAT observes that Assessee obtained audit report in Form 10B on Sep 30, 2016 i.e., prior to filing of return of income on June 21, 2018 but the third condition stipulated

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