INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

142(1) of the Act calling for the necessary information/documents/explanation from the assessee, the Assessing officer denied the claim of exemption U/s 11 and 12 of the Act. As per the Assessing officer, the registration granted to the assessee society has been withdrawn by the ld CIT-I Jaipur vide order dated 28.03.2013 under section 12AA(3) ITO Vs. Rajasthan

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

142(1) of the Act calling for the necessary information/documents/explanation from the assessee, the Assessing officer denied the claim of exemption U/s 11 and 12 of the Act. As per the Assessing officer, the registration granted to the assessee society has been withdrawn by the ld CIT-I Jaipur vide order dated 28.03.2013 under section 12AA(3) ITO Vs. Rajasthan

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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