SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

depreciation of " 6,13,624. Issue vi. The authenticity of credits, share capital and share premium has not been established. Response vi.a As has been submitted, complete details of the share subscriber and also share premium were furnished. These details were analysed by ld. AO who found the same satisfactory. Change in shareholding pattern had no impact on the issue

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

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

142 against the appellant for the assessment\nyears 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands\nallowed with costs.\nThe above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this\nITAT in the case of M B Traders Vs. ACIT [ 132 TTJ 490 ] wherein the co-\nordinate bench held that

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

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

142 against the appellant for the assessment\nyears 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands\nallowed with costs.\nThe above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this\nITAT in the case of M B Traders Vs. ACIT [ 132 TTJ 490 ] wherein the co-\nordinate bench held that

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

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

142 against the appellant for the assessment\nyears 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands\nallowed with costs.\nThe above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this\nITAT in the case of M B Traders Vs. ACIT [ 132 TTJ 490 ] wherein the co-\nordinate bench held that

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

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

142 against the appellant for the assessment\nyears 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands\nallowed with costs.\nThe above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this\nITAT in the case of M B Traders Vs. ACIT [ 132 TTJ 490 ] wherein the co-\nordinate bench held that

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

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

142 against the appellant for the assessment\nyears 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands\nallowed with costs.\nThe above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this\nITAT in the case of M B Traders Vs. ACIT [ 132 TTJ 490 ] wherein the co-\nordinate bench held that

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

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

142 against the appellant for the assessment\nyears 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands\nallowed with costs.\nThe above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this\nITAT in the case of M B Traders Vs. ACIT [ 132 TTJ 490 ] wherein the co-\nordinate bench held that

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

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

142 against the appellant for the assessment\nyears 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands\nallowed with costs.\nThe above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this\nITAT in the case of M B Traders Vs. ACIT [ 132 TTJ 490 ] wherein the co-\nordinate bench held that

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

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

142 against the appellant for the assessment\nyears 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands\nallowed with costs.\nThe above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this\nITAT in the case of M B Traders Vs. ACIT [ 132 TTJ 490 ] wherein the co-\nordinate bench held that

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

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

142 against the appellant for the assessment\nyears 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands\nallowed with costs.\nThe above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this\nITAT in the case of M B Traders Vs. ACIT [ 132 TTJ 490 ] wherein the co-\nordinate bench held that

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

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

142 against the appellant for the assessment\nyears 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands\nallowed with costs.\nThe above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this\nITAT in the case of M B Traders Vs. ACIT [ 132 TTJ 490 ] wherein the co-\nordinate bench held that

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

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

142 against the appellant for the assessment\nyears 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands\nallowed with costs.\nThe above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this\nITAT in the case of M B Traders Vs. ACIT [ 132 TTJ 490 ] wherein the co-\nordinate bench held that

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

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

142 against the appellant for the assessment\nyears 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands\nallowed with costs.\n\nThe above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this\nITAT in the case of M B Traders Vs. ACIT [ 132 TTJ 490 ] wherein the co-\nordinate bench held

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

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)

142(1) dated 10-09- 2021 again the assessee was required to explain allowability of this expenditure. However, no reply was filed by the given dated i.e. 17-09- 2021 Further opportunities were provided, but no reply was filed. Therefore, the ld. AO disallowed that expenditure and add back to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from

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, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

142(1) dated 10-09- 2021 again the assessee was required to explain allowability of this expenditure. However, no reply was filed by the given dated i.e. 17-09- 2021 Further opportunities were provided, but no reply was filed. Therefore, the ld. AO disallowed that expenditure and add back to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from