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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

143(1),\nassumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important\nto bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court\nwill essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the\nCentral Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a\nreturn is processed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter 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

RAJESH MOTORS (CARS) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the above mentioned assessee's are dismissed

143(1), assumes critical\nimportance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in\nmind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will\nessentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of\nthe Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where\na return is processed

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

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

143(3) of the Act, nor during any enquiry by the assessee. Hence the assessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Act are not according to the law and facts of the case is liable to be quashed. 2.8 We further noted that the grievance of the assessee was that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed

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)

143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. If it be held that an order

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

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)

143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. If it be held that an order

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed

M/S BALAJI CONSTRUCTION,AJMER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation @ 50% was to be allowed. (vi) That the power under section 154 can be invoked only to correct an error & not to disturb a concluding finding given in scrutiny assessment made under 7 M/s Balaji Construction/ Dinesh Choudhary vs. ACIT section 143

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

143(3) of Prem\nKunj Commosales P Ltd for AY 2014-15 dated\n07.12.2016\n146-\n152\n25. Copy of assessment order u/s 143(3) of\nPanchkoti Wholeseller P Ltd for AY 2014-15 dated\n13.12.2016\n153-\n159\n26. Copy of assessment order u/s 143(3) of Night\nBird Barter P Ltd for AY 2014-15 dated\n21.11.2016\n160-\n165

DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB JAIPUR vs. KANDARP TRADELINKS AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, V K I JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

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

143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. KANDARP TRADELINKS AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VKI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

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

143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

depreciation and also in respect of claim for grant of deduction under Section 80 IA. A separate audit report in the prescribed form 10CCB in support of the claim for deduction under Section 80IA/80IB was also duly submitted. The assessee had also submitted reply pursuant to all queries made by AO during the assessment proceedings under Section 143

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

143 (1—A survey was\r\nconducted from which it was found that assessee has deposited money with\r\nNIL—It was further seen that said company is a specified person of assessee—\r\nAccording to Assessing Officer, assessee is hit by Section 13(1)(c)(ii) and\r\nSection 13(1)(d) for such reason assessment was reopened under

WAHID KHAN,BHIWADI vs. ITO WARD-1(2), ALWAR /DCIT CPC BENGALURU, ALWAR/CPC BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictional High Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed

TAB INDIA GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed