ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

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

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 (3

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)

depreciation provided by Rs 1077958.00, only on the basis of suspicious without making any enquiry from the assessee. The nature of subsidy received by the assessee is in the form of VAT Exemption given by the Himachal Pradesh State Government to promote establishment of new unit/expansion of existing unit in the state of Himachal Pradesh in such area (Baddi

ADITYA CEMENT,BEHROR vs. ITO, BEHROR

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

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

section 154 of the Act. 2 Aditya Cement, Alwar 2. That the Id. CIT(Appeal) erred in confirming the order passed by the Id. AO which was time barred by limitation, the order was passed after time limit provided in the Act. 3. That the Id AO has illegally rectified the order u/s 154 and made illegal addition

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)

3,17,05,251/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) by CPC vide intimation dated 22.12.2023, wherein the system treated the assessee company as having opted for taxation under Section 115BAA (which provides a concessional rate of tax but disallows certain deductions). As a result, the CPC disallowed the assessee company's claim under Section 10AA and raised

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)

154 (Bom)held that “The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief by the Assessing Officer that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that such is the case before he proceeds to issue a notice under section 147. The reasons which

INCOME TAX OFFICER , EXEMPTION, WARD, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

154, the appellant has withdrawn and added back ‘’provisions of expenses withdrawn’’ of Rs.s2,30,26,s342/- 8.2.2 In the original assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 27.03.2015, the A.O. had made an addition of Rs.2,30,26,342/- on account of disallowance of provision for the expenses. In the appeal before the CIT(A) vide order u/s 250 dated

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

RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 of the Act.\nTherefore, after considering the above facts and position of the case, the\npresent rectification application cannot be accepted and accordingly\nrejected as the same lack merits\n3.\nAggrieved, from that order passed u/s.154 of the Act\nthe assessee filed an appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Apropos\nto the grounds so raised and after hearing

KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: or at the time of hearing of

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against this order passed by ld.AO, assessee decided to file an appeal before CIT(A) wherein ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of the assessee’s books of accounts and invoking the provisions provided u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act”). However

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

section 271. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Rule 46A(3), the Learned CIT(A), before taking into account the additional evidences furnished by the assessee allowed an opportunity to the Learned Assessing Officer by calling a remand report. The Learned Assessing Officer submitted remand report under letter dated 30 ITA No. 324/JP/2024 & CO No. 12/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Paradise

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

3), Kolkata that they are Directors in the various companies which is controlled & managed by Mr. Anjani Banka. Statement of Mr. Anjani Banka was also recorded by the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-2(3), Kolkata on 29.03.2014 wherein he accepted that he is engaged in providing accommodation entries in form of share capital, unsecured loan, LTCG etc and to facilitate

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,

3. The Ld. CIT(A) at Pg 36-37, Para 5.3 held that books of accounts of the assessee are not audited, assessee himself declared profit @ 8% u/s 44AD of the Act, AO found that actual turnover is more and therefore applied the rate of profit as per section 44AD, if the assessee wanted to show less profit he should

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

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) at Pg 36-37, Para 5.3 held that books of accounts of the assessee are not audited, assessee himself declared profit @ 8% u/s 44AD of the Act, AO found that actual turnover is more and therefore applied the rate of profit as per section 44AD, if the assessee wanted to show less profit he should

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

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) at Pg 36-37, Para 5.3 held that books of accounts of the assessee are not audited, assessee himself declared profit @ 8% u/s 44AD of the Act, AO found that actual turnover is more and therefore applied the rate of profit as per section 44AD, if the assessee wanted to show less profit he should

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) at Pg 36-37, Para 5.3 held that books of accounts of the assessee are not audited, assessee himself declared profit @ 8% u/s 44AD of the Act, AO found that actual turnover is more and therefore applied the rate of profit as per section 44AD, if the assessee wanted to show less profit he should

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,

3. The Ld. CIT(A) at Pg 36-37, Para 5.3 held that books of accounts of the assessee are not audited, assessee himself declared profit @ 8% u/s 44AD of the Act, AO found that actual turnover is more and therefore applied the rate of profit as per section 44AD, if the assessee wanted to show less profit he should

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) at Pg 36-37, Para 5.3 held that books of accounts of the assessee are not audited, assessee himself declared profit @ 8% u/s 44AD of the Act, AO found that actual turnover is more and therefore applied the rate of profit as per section 44AD, if the assessee wanted to show less profit he should

RENU KHUNTETA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

depreciation allowable in accordance with the provisions of section 32 as if no 8 Renu Khunteta vs. ITO deduction under section 35AD was allowed in respect of the assets on which the deduction under that section is claimed. Since the total income of the assessee is less than 20 lakhs hence, the assessee is not covered u/s 115JC