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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

depreciation at Rs. 4,90,397/-. The AO has initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of the order of CIT (Exemption), Jaipur u/s 12AA(3) dated 27.12.2010 by which the registration granted u/s 12AA was withdrawn w.e.f. AY 2005-06. The AO by disallowing the benefit u/s 11 assessed the total income

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

31-50 ] 2. Rameshwaram Strong Glass (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 542 (Jaipur - Trib.) : Where assessee company determined Fair Market Value of shares issued at premium on basis of Discount Cash Flow method in accordance with rule 11UA(2)(b) read with section 56(2)(viib) and valuation report was prepared as per guidelines given by ICAI and no fault

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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)

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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)

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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)

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

31,841/-. The ld. DR has relied upon the findings of the AO, where the ld. DR is in opinion of the AO that the assessee which is not allowable for exempt u/s 11 and 12. The ld. Dr relied upon the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act where that in the last limb of the definition