M/S. JAIPUR TAX WEAVING PARK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Her.”

depreciation in future years. 13. In the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilzers Ltd. v/s CIT (227 ITR 172) (SC), there was no issue before the Hon'ble SC regarding connection of the income earned inextricably with the borrowed funds and hence it was verdicted that interest on surplus funds during Pre operation period is liable to be taxed separately

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

BPS SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,CHOUDHARY CHARAN SINGH, SIKAR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

208/- 3. Taxable income Rs.2,52,82,658/- 4. Rounded off Rs. 2,52,80,660/- 3. In nut shell, the Assessing Officer was of the view that provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act were attracted, and, accordingly, he denied benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee and raised tax liability

BPS SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,CHOUDHARY CHARAN SINGH, SIKAR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

208/- 3. Taxable income Rs.2,52,82,658/- 4. Rounded off Rs. 2,52,80,660/- 3. In nut shell, the Assessing Officer was of the view that provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act were attracted, and, accordingly, he denied benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee and raised tax liability

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

section 69B of the Act. This section reads as under:- "Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, and the Assessing Officer finds that

GHODAWAT HOTELS PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(HQ), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

depreciation is a statutory deduction available to assessee and other expenses claimed were exclusively incurred for business expenses. Thus the disallowance so sustained deserves to be deleted. 4 M/s. Ghodawat Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (HQ), Circle- 6, Jaipur . 2.1 First of all, we take up the grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 which

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 40(a)(ia) provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are generally allowed under the general section. The computation u/s.29 has to be made u/s.145 on the basis of books of account regularly maintained by the assessee which the Assessing Officer did by estimating the profit at 5% of the sales. The learned Counsel

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 16 ITA No. 324/JP/2024 & CO No. 12/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Paradise Properties 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making the addition of Rs. 97,12,126/-by disallowing interest expenses claimed by the assessee on unsecured

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation was examined u/s 143(3), thus the\naction of ld PCIT (Admin) in raising doubts to the settled issue is an attempt to\nunsettle the past history and such direction deserves to be struck down.\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. PCIT (Admin) has\ngrossly erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous

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

208, 224), Premkunj\nCommotrade P Ltd (CIT(A) PBP 138, 196, 226), Premkunj Commonsales\nPrivate Limited (CIT(A) PBP 139, 146, 167, 184, 225) , Panchkoti Wholeseller P\nLtd, (CIT(A) PBP 153, 168, 172, 173, 222 ) Nightbrid Barter P Ltd (CIT(A) PBP\n160, 169, 171, 220, ):\n\n(i) In respect of M/s Shankatharan Sales P Ltd, M/s Premkunj

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

section 14A(1), deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that

INTEGRAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal, The Assessee Bank Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

depreciation on computers at 60% instead of 33% allowed in the assessment order. 4. That the Hon’ble ITAT may direct recalculation of interest u/s 234A on the net profit determined after giving effect to the order of the Hon’ble ITAT.” 4. The ld. AR submitted that the additional grounds are purely legal grounds and all the facts

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)

depreciation. Finally, it filed ITR on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.30,00,650/- During assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised computation including the surrendered amount under the head “Income from business & profession” and explaining that there being no column in the ITR to show “Surrendered business income”, it had shown the same under the head “Income from other

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

208 20000+1070000+9756250) on basis of WhatsApp messages have been extracted from the mobile of the appellant. These messages relate to the funds received/given. Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT However it has been explained during course of assessment proceeding that the message at Page 34 of the show cause notice does not relate to the appellant. Further, message

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

208 20000+1070000+9756250) on basis of WhatsApp messages have been extracted from the mobile of the appellant. These messages relate to the funds received/given. Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT However it has been explained during course of assessment proceeding that the message at Page 34 of the show cause notice does not relate to the appellant. Further, message

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

208 20000+1070000+9756250) on basis of WhatsApp messages have been extracted from the mobile of the appellant. These messages relate to the funds received/given. Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT However it has been explained during course of assessment proceeding that the message at Page 34 of the show cause notice does not relate to the appellant. Further, message

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

208 20000+1070000+9756250) on basis of WhatsApp messages have been extracted from the mobile of the appellant. These messages relate to the funds received/given. Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT However it has been explained during course of assessment proceeding that the message at Page 34 of the show cause notice does not relate to the appellant. Further, message