SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

41,03,200/-. The AO in his order assessed the\nincome of the assessee at Rs.5,61,08,400/- after making\ndisallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs. 16,46,879\n(i.e. Rs.15,51,701/- towards PF and Rs. 95,178/- towards ESI) due\nto the fact that contribution of EPF/ESI of employees contribution\nwas

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

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, and MAT credit set-off. The ld. DR vide submission dated 14.07.2025 further submitted as under : I. Limitation Period Under Section 149(1)(b) is Fully Alive The assessee has contended that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. However, this contention is devoid of merit in view of the amended 29 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO provisions

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is 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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

SODHANI SWEET PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is 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