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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

5-6\nno. 1635/Del/2021)\n3\nIn the ITAT 'A' Bench Chennai The Ceylon Penecostal Mission vs. 7-13\nThe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC) (ITA No.\n320/Chny/2021)\n4\nIn the ITAT Delhi Bench 'G' Garg Heart Centre & Nursing Home Pvt. 14-27\nLimited v. ACIT, Circle-10(1) NFAC (ITA No. 1700/Del/2022)\n5\nIn the ITAT Jaipur Benches

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

1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as\r\ndonation was added back to income of assessee under Section 69А—CIT(A)\r\naffirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such\r\nas with regard to claim for carry forward of depreciation

RAJESH MOTORS (CARS) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the above mentioned assessee's are dismissed

5(1), Jaipur\n6. Another argument taken before us is that the disallowance made\nby the CPC Bengaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act is\nbeyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1(a) of the Act and, therefore,\ncannot be sustained.\n7. We have carefully perused the decision of the co-ordinate bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

1 advertisement exp. 291817.00 810179.00 57121.00 2 audit fee 60000.00 90500.00 118860.00 3 building rent exp. 336000.00 369600.00 432000.00 4 bank charges 1951.00 1919.50 331.65 5 conveyance exp. 362421.00 603900.00 840313.00 6 depreciation charges 2896422.07 3095136.95 3798057.57 7 drawing & craft exp. 515632.00 685971.00 678011.00 8 education exp. 587609.00 640070.00 730717.00 9 education al tour & picnic 290150.00 755993.00 930590.00 10 electricity

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

section\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\n8.\nWe have heard both the parties and perused the materials available\non record. Vide Ground no 1 & 2 the assessee challenges the levy of\npenalty of Rs.4,04,481/-. The brief facts related to the levy of this penalty is\nthat the assessee there was an action of search and seizure action

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

5) of the Act. As such, there is a violation\nof provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Furthermore, during the year under\nconsideration, the assesseetrust has shown advances of Rs. 1,49,00,000/- under the\nhead loans and advances for land and construction without any description of\npersons to whom such amounts were given

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)

5. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred in making the addition of Rs. 27,67,977.00 by disallowing depreciation, stating that this is out of corpus of the Trust. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not allowing the depreciation & did different interpretation which is not based on earlier order of Higher Authorities. 6. That the Ld. A.O. grossly

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

5) provides for filing a revised return when the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement made in the return already filed under sub- section (1) of section 139 or return filed under sub- section (1) of section 142. This revised return can be filed at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant

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

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

1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified

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

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

1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified

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

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

1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified

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

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

1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified

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

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

1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified

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

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

1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified

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

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

1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified

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

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

1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified

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

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

1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified

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

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

1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified

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

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

1)(a) of the Act of 1922 (corresponding to section 147(a) of the Act of\n1961) does not cast a duty upon the assessee to instruct the Income-tax Officer on\nquestions of law.\nIt may also be mentioned that so far as the assessment for the assessment year\n1957-58 is concerned, the assessment order was once rectified