DILIP SINGH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Section 10(10AA). The copy of acknowledgement of return of income filed by the assessee is enclosed as a part of paper book vide Page No. 1. The CPC, Bengaluru issued a notice dated 30.08.2021 proposing disallowance

BHARTIYA SHIKSHA PRACHAR SAMITI TONK,TONK vs. CIRCLE(EXEMP.), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Feeling Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 06.12.2018. Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer. By Way Of Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer (Exemption Circle), Jaipur Computed The Total Income Of The Assessee As Under:- “7. Subject To Above, The Total Income In This Case Is Computed As Under:- Gross Receipts As Per Income & Expenditure A/C Rs. 8,20,85,351/- Less: Revenue Expenditure As Per Income & Expenditure Account Rs. 6,28,43,345/- Rs. 1,92,42,006/- Total Income Rs. 1,92,42,006/- Rs. 1,92,42,010/-“ Rounded Off

section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act and in disallowing exemption simply on the ground that the assessee was having

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance 320,000,000 10

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance 320,000,000 10

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance 320,000,000 10

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JOY SYNDICATE & ENCLAVE PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB DCIT vs. M/s Joy Syndicate & Enclave Pvt. Ltd. of the I.T. Act is justified on the ground that the provisions of clause (e) & (f) of section 80IB(10

PRIME ROSE CITY SCHOOL SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR

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

section 10(23C)(iiiad), whereas the two provisions are independent and mutually exclusive. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the assessee's submission that similar institutions facing the same issue were granted relief in appeal, and that the principle of parity should be applied. 7. Under

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10) to the assessee. The only contention is that since the original return of income was filed by the asessee beyond the period prescribed in section 139(1), therefore, the embargo placed by section 80AC on the entitlement of the assessee to the deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act comes into play. Section 139 (4) allows "any person

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

disallowances of 10% expenses related to printing and stationary, staff welfare is deleted. Therefore, the addition is reduced to Rs.1,50,421/-. Appellant's ground of appeal on the issue is partly allowed.” From perusal of the impugned order, we observe that any expenditure is allowed under section

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Disallowance under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, of Rs. 23,31,312/-\n35\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR\nPCIT assumed jurisdiction under Section 263, on the issue of Section 14A for the\nreason that (i) CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, dated 11.02.2014 clarifies that receipt\nof exempt income, in any year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Section 34 which is only the interest received for delay\nin making the payment after the compensation amount is\ndetermined. Thus, the interest u/s 28 is a part of the value of the\nland.\n6. The it. CIT (A) held that the interest received u/s 28 of the\nLand Acquisition Act, 1894 is not exempt under

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs. 2,21,70,790/- against the indirect expenses under rule 8D (2)(ii). The assessee earned the exempt income of Rs. 62,529/- of long term capital gains under Section 10

DASHRATH KUMAR SEN,AJMER vs. ACIT, NEFAC -1(2)(2),DELH, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act”] by National Faceless Assessment Unit [ for short AO]. 2 Dashrath Kumar Sen vs. ACIT 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1 Ground-1 10(10AA) DISALLOWANCES

BEAWAR BAL VIKAS SAMITEE,BEAWAR vs. ADDL JCIT OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, MYSORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing genuine claims of exemption under Section 10(2)(c)(vi). Courts have consistently held that the primary consideration should

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related against the order passed under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 66,30,268/- under section

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.

10:28 AM)(43 of 43)[ ITA- 236/2016] considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there under form 10A, we are of the considered opinion that it will be open for the department while making assessment to follow provision of section 11(5) and section 13 to disallow

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.

10:28 AM)(43 of 43)[ ITA- 236/2016] considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there under form 10A, we are of the considered opinion that it will be open for the department while making assessment to follow provision of section 11(5) and section 13 to disallow

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.

10:28 AM)(43 of 43)[ ITA- 236/2016] considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there under form 10A, we are of the considered opinion that it will be open for the department while making assessment to follow provision of section 11(5) and section 13 to disallow