INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

10(23C)(iiiad), which is illegal and now it is\nthe settled legal position of law that if no addition on the reasons recorded has\nbeen made then no other addition or disallowance or denial of exemption or\nclaim or deduction can be made, for this kindly refer following decisions:\n(a) In the case of CIT vs. Shri

RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

25% 2013-14 1879652330 400021086 21% From the above table it can be noted that the percentage of profit earned is more than the normal profit which itself shows that this is existing for earning profit. This is more evident from Balance Sheet that it is having capital contribution of Rs.78292/- only whereas accumulated profit earned is Rs.2

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal of

disallow exemption in LTC Rules in case of foreign travel the same should have been specifically mentioned, but that is not so, nowhere in the entire section any such proviso/point appears. Also, it would be wrong to say that they have bent the interpretation intentionally against the intent and spirit of these provisions as: 1) The two basic conditions

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.”

disallowance of exemption claimed under section 10(10AA) which was in excess Rs 300000.00. Same was replied by assessee in response column to notice as well as by e mail. The copy of said notice is enclosed as Page No’s 2-4 of paper book and the replies thereto are enclosed as page No’s 5-12 of paper

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

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

10,00,000 Ajayji 20/3/13 25,00,000 Sanjayji 1/3 25,00,000 Satyanarainji 15/3 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal 35,00,000 Sureshji 26/3 1,40,00,000 The amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- advanced to Sheela Devi pertains to AY 2014-15 and the balance amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- pertains to AY 2013-14. The interest

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

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

10,00,000 Ajayji 20/3/13 25,00,000 Sanjayji 1/3 25,00,000 Satyanarainji 15/3 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal 35,00,000 Sureshji 26/3 1,40,00,000 The amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- advanced to Sheela Devi pertains to AY 2014-15 and the balance amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- pertains to AY 2013-14. The interest

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

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

10,00,000 Ajayji 20/3/13 25,00,000 Sanjayji 1/3 25,00,000 Satyanarainji 15/3 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal 35,00,000 Sureshji 26/3 1,40,00,000 The amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- advanced to Sheela Devi pertains to AY 2014-15 and the balance amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- pertains to AY 2013-14. The interest

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

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

10,00,000 Ajayji 20/3/13 25,00,000 Sanjayji 1/3 25,00,000 Satyanarainji 15/3 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal 35,00,000 Sureshji 26/3 1,40,00,000 The amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- advanced to Sheela Devi pertains to AY 2014-15 and the balance amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- pertains to AY 2013-14. The interest

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

25,67,55,372/- thereby, partially allowing the assessee appeal. Thus, he implicitly accepted that no disallowance could be made under section 36(1)(iii) but a disallowance was to be made in terms of section 14A. 17.1. In the earlier assessment years the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the file of the CIT(A) in order to determine

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

25,67,55,372/- thereby, partially allowing the assessee appeal. Thus, he implicitly accepted that no disallowance could be made under section 36(1)(iii) but a disallowance was to be made in terms of section 14A. 17.1. In the earlier assessment years the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the file of the CIT(A) in order to determine

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

25,67,55,372/- thereby, partially allowing the assessee appeal. Thus, he implicitly accepted that no disallowance could be made under section 36(1)(iii) but a disallowance was to be made in terms of section 14A. 17.1. In the earlier assessment years the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the file of the CIT(A) in order to determine

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

disallowed, contribution to Jaipur National University which has not been held to be application of income in view of violation of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) of the Act, and addition to fixed Assets which have not been allowed as application of income. Taking into consideration all these issues in addition to systematic generation of surplus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA vs. BHIM SINGH, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) By The Assessee Which Were Allowed By The Ld. Cit (A) Are To Be Considered In This Appeal

disallowances made by the AO in the assessment framed under section 143(3) were deleted by the ld. CIT (A) as under :- 3 Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. 4 Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. 5 Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. 6 Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. Thus it is clear that the ld. CIT (A) has followed the decision of this Tribunal in assessee

TIRUPATI COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

section 10(23C) from back date are also not according to the law and facts of the case and at the worst after the year of notice it can be done if any. In the case of CIT V/s Manav Vikas Avam Sewa Sansthan 336 ITR 250 (All) it has been held that “9. We have heard the learned counsel

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

10% of the claim. Ground No. 2 is regarding claim of cash discount given to the customers of Rs. 83,000/-. 14. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO has made the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 83,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 2,70,993/-. The ld. A/R has submitted that the discount

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

10% of the claim. Ground No. 2 is regarding claim of cash discount given to the customers of Rs. 83,000/-. 14. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO has made the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 83,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 2,70,993/-. The ld. A/R has submitted that the discount

LATE SH. BHIM SEN BATRA L/H SH. HIMANSHU BATRA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

10% of the claim. Ground No. 2 is regarding claim of cash discount given to the customers of Rs. 83,000/-. 14. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO has made the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 83,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 2,70,993/-. The ld. A/R has submitted that the discount

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