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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

43,997 is deleted. This ground is\n\"Allowed\".\n8. Ground No (i) and (iv) are general in nature and does not require any\nseparate adjudication and treated as dismissed.\n9. In the result, the appeal is \"Partly Allowed.\"\n5. As the assessee did not find any favour, from the appeal so\nfiled before the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC

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

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB JAIPUR vs. KANDARP TRADELINKS AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, V K I JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

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

43(1)(a)(iv) as the opinions/statements made by the auditor are not binding on the auditee. The auditor is duty bound to state the opinions/statements in Form 3CD but the auditee is nowhere bound to accept the opinions/statements made by the auditor. The same has been held by Hon'ble Tribunal (Mumbai) in Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd. Vs. Deputy