AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

RENU KHUNTETA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

80C 13536 80D 15000 80TTA 1016 80IA 1837984 (1867536) Total Income 383014/- 8. The AO issued notice u/s 154 signed by the same ITO who has passed the order u/s 143(3). (See P.B. Pg. No. 14) 7 Renu Khunteta vs. ITO 9. The assessee replied to the notice u/s 154 vide letter dt:- 21/08/2017. The copy of the letter

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

80C. On receipt of\ninformation from ITO (Hq.) vide his letter no. 657 dated 02.07.2015 (PB Pages 3-\n4), the AO recorded reason on 27.03.2017 mentioning that \"As per information,\nthe assessee has sold the plot no.72, Gayatri Nagar at Rs.20,00,000/- on\n04.11.2009 through the sale deed which was executed by the Sub-Registrar VIII,\nJaipur. The assessee

NEHA WADHWA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A).

depreciation of vehicle of Rs. 1,52,940/- and vehicle running expenses for Rs.90,000/-. She also disclosed income from other sources for Rs.8,36.201/- 3.3 While explaining the source of the purchase of the car, the assessee claimed that there was a repayment from pawn debtors for Rs.8,37,500/- 3.4 The Assessing Officer asked for the details

SANDEEP JAIN,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4) JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

80C to the tune of Rs.1,27,347/- were disallowed. Against such order, assessee preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A) who vide order dated 21.11.2022, confirmed the additions made in assessment order, primarily on the findings of ld.AO. Thus the present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order so passed by ld.CIT(A) before the hon’ble bench