M/S. K.D.JAIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MADANGANJ vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), AJMER

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

928/- respectively which have already been given to the Assessee Society while framing the assessment order. Further, the Assessee Society has stated that huge expenses of Rs. 50,00,000/ have been disallowed without any basis. In this regard, it is submitted that the case was selected under limited scrutiny to examine whether the large deductions against income from Other

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

928/- is concerned, the same being common expense has been considered by the Assessee for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.5,347/- calculated as per its detailed working submitted during assessment. The copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure___ for your ready reference. However, expenditure of Rs. 7,20,412/- is a specific expense have been used

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. JHANDEWALAS FOODS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 2 of revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, ground no

section 133A does not empower any income tax authority to examine any person on oath and thus, any such statement has no evidentiary value. Further, Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Roshan Lal Lodha in DBITA No. 185/2014 vide order dated 3.11.201, after following the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

depreciation of Rs. 2,35,053 in their original return filed on 16.09.2010. Upon reviewing their income return for AY 2017-18, it is evident that the loss is still being carried forward, with no apparent benefit to the assessee-appellant who was already struggling with losses. It is worth noting that the assessee did not have significant profits that