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)

250 Taxman 16 (SC) CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 99 DTR 131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation

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

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. 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 250 of the Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. IT Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds raised by the assessee and revenue are as under :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability charge

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

250 of the Income Tax\r\nAct 1961 [ for short Act ]dated 27.05.2025 for the assessment year 2019-\r\n20. Ld. CIT(A) passed that order because the assessee had challenged\r\nassessment order dated 27.02.2024 passed under section 147r.w.s.144\r\nread with section 144B of the Act by National Faceless Assessment Unit of\r\nIncome Tax Department [ for short

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

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

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

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

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)

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

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,

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

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,

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

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)

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

250/-. Therefore, the ld. AO cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath now. 3. It is submitted that S. 44AB of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 1984 (21 of 1984), with effect from 01.04.1985, i.e., for and from assessment year 1985-86. The object behind this is explained in circular no. 387, dated

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

250 (All) 5.1 No cancellation of Registration u/s 12A can be made of all years: In the present case the ld. Pr. CIT(C)or PA has found or made allegation or objection or diversion of mis appropriations of funds and not filling the Audit report and ITR, if any only

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

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

250 of the Act does not prescribe a mandatory time\nlimit for disposal of appeals. If the power claimed by the CIT(A) in the present\ncase were valid, he could pass directions in the year 2030 instructing the AO\nto initiate reassessment proceedings for the present assessment year. Such a\ndirection would enable the AO to reopen assessments long

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

250 of the Act does not prescribe a mandatory time limit for disposal of appeals. If the power claimed by the CIT(A) in the present case were valid, he could pass directions in the year 2030 instructing the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings for the present assessment year. Such a direction would enable the AO to reopen assessments long

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

250 of the Act does not prescribe a mandatory time limit for disposal of appeals. If the power claimed by the CIT(A) in the present case were valid, he could pass directions in the year 2030 instructing the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings for the present assessment year. Such a direction would enable the AO to reopen assessments long

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

250/-. The AO observed that the assessee has sold the agricultural land whereas the deduction under section 54 is allowable on sale of residential house. The AO further noted that the agricultural land has been sold by the assessee vide single sale deed and, therefore, the agricultural land and construction thereon was considered as single unit in the said sale

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

250(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In this connection, order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AmritlalBhogilal& Co. [1958]34 ITR 130 (SC) may be studied. 5. The parties agreed that assessment year 2013-14 is lead assessment year and appeal of both revenue and assessee is pending before us and thus, facts and arguments