INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a society trust registered under Rajasthan Society Trust Registration Act, 1958 and also registered under Sport Association’s Registration Accreditation Act, 2005 with the main object of promotion and development of the game of Cricket in the State of Rajasthan. The assessee society filed its return of income

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a society trust registered under Rajasthan Society Trust Registration Act, 1958 and also registered under Sport Association’s Registration Accreditation Act, 2005 with the main object of promotion and development of the game of Cricket in the State of Rajasthan. The assessee society filed its return of income

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

2)(i) explicitly stipulates those deductions / exemptions contained in Chapter VIA, Part C (which includes Section 80-IA) will be subjected to Minimum Alternate Tax under section 115JC for non-corporate assesses. Thus, this clear difference in the provision of the Act has neither been considered nor being decided and therefore, considering that specific absence of the provision the benefit

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

5. Explanation 2 to Section 263, inserted vide Finance Act, 2015, cannot override the basic requirements of Sub-Section (1) of Section 263. In this regard, reliance is placed on the below mentioned judicial pronouncements: i. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2018] 173 ITD 130 (Ahmedabad- Trib.) ii. Eveready Industries India Ltd [2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata -Trib.) iii. M/s Amira Pure

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)

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

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)

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

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)

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

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

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

2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(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

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

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

2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(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

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

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

2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(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

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

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

2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(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

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

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

2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(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

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

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

2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(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

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

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

2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(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

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

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

2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(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

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

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

2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(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

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

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

2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(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

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

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

2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC),\nsection 34(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