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

31. We further note that against the said decision of the Coordinate Bench, the Revenue has thereafter moved an appeal before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 252/2017 wherein the following substantial questions of law were admitted by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court: “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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of the order of CIT (Exemption), Jaipur u/s 12AA(3) dated 27.12.2010 by which the registration granted u/s 12AA was withdrawn w.e.f. AY 2005-06.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

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of the order of CIT (Exemption), Jaipur u/s 12AA(3) dated 27.12.2010 by which the registration granted u/s 12AA was withdrawn w.e.f. AY 2005-06.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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),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of the order of CIT (Exemption), Jaipur u/s 12AA(3) dated 27.12.2010 by which the registration granted u/s 12AA was withdrawn w.e.f. AY 2005-06.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

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year. (7) Where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AA or has obtained registration at any time under section

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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