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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

depreciation.\nThe assessee filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur which\nwas disposed off vide order 04-04-2018 by the Id. CIT(A). After giving the\neffect of the above order, the assessed income was reduced to\nRs.1,05,94,050/- which was as declared in the revised return of income\nfiled on 19.10.2015. Since, there

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly

WAHID KHAN,BHIWADI vs. ITO WARD-1(2), ALWAR /DCIT CPC BENGALURU, ALWAR/CPC BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

41,151/- creating additional tax liability/demand of Rs. 4,31,952/- by passing order under section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 on 25.10.2019. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who in turn also dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Now the assessee has preferred this appeal before

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

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

section 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43/[1992] 65 Taxman 420. The depreciation being notional expenditure will not fall under the expression 'actually applied' as held by the Apex Court in the case