TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

disallowance of Rs.5,12,198/- was\nmade u/s 14A of I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently considering information received by\nId. AO from ITO (Inv.), Unit-1 and AIU, Kolkata, the assessment was reopened by\nissue of notice u/s 148 dated 18.03.2019, in response to which the assessee filed\nreturn of income and requested for supply of reasons recorded, which were\nprovided

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

section 148A(c) of the Act and thereby the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.07.2022. The assessee also challenged issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act before the Jurisdictional High Court. As the High Court did not grant any stay or passed on the order the ld. AO proceeded by making the assessment

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(38

SHRI RUPAL JAIAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

section 10(38) of the Act. 6 Smt. Rupal Jain, Jaipur. 4. Before us, the ld. A/R for the assessee submitted as under : “ i. That assessee appellant is an Individual and regularly filing his Income tax Return. ii. That during the year under consideration assessee had sold the shares of Rs 25,20,930/- of Sunrise Asian Limited Invested

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. 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

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

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

38 of 1959), a corresponding new bank constituted under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), or under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980), or any other bank being a bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank

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)

38) of section 10 or section 10 or section 10B or section 10BA or Chapter VIA exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed

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

KANTA AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 14A of IT Act, 1961 without appreciating that the assessee did not claim any expenses out of such exempted income that is why no expenditure should have been disallowed on account of this exempted income. 5. The ld. NFAC has grossly erred in confirming the addition on account of bogus long term capital gain u/s 10(38

KANTA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 14A of IT Act, 1961 without appreciating that the assessee did not claim any expenses out of such exempted income that is why no expenditure should have been disallowed on account of this exempted income. 5. The ld. NFAC has grossly erred in confirming the addition on account of bogus long term capital gain u/s 10(38

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The disputed transaction involved shares\nacquired through an amalgamation, later sold at a significant profit, with the\nassessee claiming an exempt LTCG.\nGrounds of Appeal:\n1. Disallowance of LTCG Exemption: The assessee argued that the LTCG\nexemption should be allowed, as all share transactions were genuine and\nsupported by documentary evidence (contract notes

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

disallowed the claim u/s 80IB for the following two reasons: a) The Project claimed to have been completed has not yet been completed, as the construction expenses continue to appear in the audited financial statements [AO page 2 para (ii)(a)]. b) The assessee company violated the provisions of section 80IB (10) (e) & (f) [AO page 3 para

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 10(38) in respect of capital gains arising from sale of shares\nBoth lower authorities had disallowed assessee's claim

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

38) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata investigated transactions in 84 such penny stock shares quoted on BSE and examined on oath a large number of brokers, directors of 6 Harish Sharma HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur companies that finally purchase the shares, the promoters of Penny stock companies, the entry operator who managed

ADITYA BAHETI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee on considering the company as penny stock companies as per their and SEBI Investigation. The Ld. Assessing officer disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee and added back Rs.2389107/- in the income of the assessee treating as bogus LTCG exemption U/s.111A of the Income Tax Act. The Ld assessing

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

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

38 to 44) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan and others vs Basant Agrotech India Ltd. and other 388 ITR 81(SC) decided that only a legislation can make a low retrospective and prospectively subject justifiability and acceptability within the constitutional para-meters. The subordinate legislation can be given with retrospective effect if a power