INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

55 ITR 722 (SC)]. If the primary or predominant object of any institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, would not prevent the institution from being a valid charity ( Addl. CIT v. Surat Art silk Cloth manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC). The present case

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.

depreciation at Rs. 4,90,397/-. The AO has initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of the order of CIT (Exemption), Jaipur u/s 12AA(3) dated 27.12.2010 by which the registration granted u/s 12AA was withdrawn w.e.f. AY 2005-06. The AO by disallowing the benefit u/s 11 assessed the total income

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),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.

depreciation at Rs. 4,90,397/-. The AO has initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of the order of CIT (Exemption), Jaipur u/s 12AA(3) dated 27.12.2010 by which the registration granted u/s 12AA was withdrawn w.e.f. AY 2005-06. The AO by disallowing the benefit u/s 11 assessed the total income

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.

depreciation at Rs. 4,90,397/-. The AO has initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of the order of CIT (Exemption), Jaipur u/s 12AA(3) dated 27.12.2010 by which the registration granted u/s 12AA was withdrawn w.e.f. AY 2005-06. The AO by disallowing the benefit u/s 11 assessed the total income

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

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

55,579 on\n29th March, 1996 making addition of Rs.15,15,859.\nThe order under s.143(3) was contested before CIT(A) who cancelled the order of\nthe AO and directed as under :\n'It is held that assessment proceedings are bad in law and hence cancelled. The\nAO should take remedial action under s.147 or any other provisions

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

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

55,579 on\n29th March, 1996 making addition of Rs.15,15,859.\nThe order under s.143(3) was contested before CIT(A) who cancelled the order of\nthe AO and directed as under :\n'It is held that assessment proceedings are bad in law and hence cancelled. The\nAO should take remedial action under s.147 or any other provisions

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

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

55,579 on\n29th March, 1996 making addition of Rs.15,15,859.\nThe order under s.143(3) was contested before CIT(A) who cancelled the order of\nthe AO and directed as under :\n'It is held that assessment proceedings are bad in law and hence cancelled. The\nAO should take remedial action under s.147 or any other provisions

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

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

55,579 on\n29th March, 1996 making addition of Rs.15,15,859.\nThe order under s.143(3) was contested before CIT(A) who cancelled the order of\nthe AO and directed as under :\n'It is held that assessment proceedings are bad in law and hence cancelled. The\nAO should take remedial action under s.147 or any other provisions

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

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

55,579 on\n29th March, 1996 making addition of Rs.15,15,859.\nThe order under s.143(3) was contested before CIT(A) who cancelled the order of\nthe AO and directed as under :\n'It is held that assessment proceedings are bad in law and hence cancelled. The\nAO should take remedial action under s.147 or any other provisions

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

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

55,579 on\n29th March, 1996 making addition of Rs.15,15,859.\nThe order under s.143(3) was contested before CIT(A) who cancelled the order of\nthe AO and directed as under :\n'It is held that assessment proceedings are bad in law and hence cancelled. The\nAO should take remedial action under s.147 or any other provisions

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

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

55,579 on\n29th March, 1996 making addition of Rs.15,15,859.\nThe order under s.143(3) was contested before CIT(A) who cancelled the order of\nthe AO and directed as under :\n'It is held that assessment proceedings are bad in law and hence cancelled. The\nAO should take remedial action under s.147 or any other provisions

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

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

55,579 on\n29th March, 1996 making addition of Rs.15,15,859.\nThe order under s.143(3) was contested before CIT(A) who cancelled the order of\nthe AO and directed as under :\n'It is held that assessment proceedings are bad in law and hence cancelled. The\nAO should take remedial action under s.147 or any other provisions

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

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

55,579 on\n29th March, 1996 making addition of Rs.15,15,859.\nThe order under s.143(3) was contested before CIT(A) who cancelled the order of\nthe AO and directed as under :\n'It is held that assessment proceedings are bad in law and hence cancelled. The\nAO should take remedial action under s.147 or any other provisions

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

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

55,579 on\n29th March, 1996 making addition of Rs.15,15,859.\nThe order under s.143(3) was contested before CIT(A) who cancelled the order of\nthe AO and directed as under :\n'It is held that assessment proceedings are bad in law and hence cancelled. The\nAO should take remedial action under s.147 or any other provisions

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

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

55,579 on\n29th March, 1996 making addition of Rs.15,15,859.\nThe order under s.143(3) was contested before CIT(A) who cancelled the order of\nthe AO and directed as under :\n'It is held that assessment proceedings are bad in law and hence cancelled. The\nAO should take remedial action under s.147 or any other provisions

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

depreciation claimed by assessee company. [PB : 39] Rs. 6,13,624. • Complete details of the share subscribers and also The authenticity of credits, share capital share premium furnished. [PB : 39] • Change in shareholding pattern had no impact on the and share premium has not been issue under consideration in limited scrutiny. established. • Share premium was to be examined in limited

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

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

55,579 on\n29th March, 1996 making addition of Rs.15,15,859.\n\nThe order under s.143(3) was contested before CIT(A) who cancelled the order of\nthe AO and directed as under :\n\n'It is held that assessment proceedings are bad in law and hence cancelled. The\nAO should take remedial action under s.147 or any other

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