SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 143(1),\nassumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important\nto bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court\nwill essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the\nCentral Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a\nreturn is processed

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Sections 36(1)(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued a 11 Ocean Exim India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the foregoing legislative amendments have proposed employers' contribution/ disallowance

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

11(5) then the income from said investments can be taxed at the maximum marginal rate but in year under consideration, there is no income from the said investment, Therefore, the provision of section 13(1)(d) is not applicable to the assessee and exemption on whole income should not be disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d). For this purpose reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT vs. Maa Vaishnav Education Society (2013) 91 DTR 166 (MP) (PB 76-79) Assessee is registered society which provides education by running colleges.AO disallowed

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance either in writing or in electronic mode, therefore, entire section 143(1) proceedings being invalid in law, intimation issued by CPC was to be quashed and set aside. 10. The order for processing of return passed u/s 143(1) suffers from the fundamental defect of not providing any opportunity to the assessee company. The specific legal requirement contained

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)

1). The issue before the Delhi High Court pertained to order passed in the assessee's application under section 119(2)(6) of the Act seeking extension of time for filing of return. The ground forwarded for late filing of the return was delay in audit. The Court considered the case for condonation of delay as under :- "9. The main

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

disallowed on the principal of lack of\ncommercial expediency.\n10. The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified\nforms/modes/assets as prescribed u/s 11(5) of the Act. As such, there is a violation\nof provisions of section 13(1

SETH RB MOONDHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BANI PARK ,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Disallowing the amount Rs. 43,272/- which was claimed under section 11 (1)(a) (11)(b) as accumulated or set apart

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in Section 143(1)(a). To this effect, the detailed written submission of the ld. AR of the assessee is reproduced as under:- GROUND NO. 1A: ADDITION MADE WITHOUT AFFORDING ANYOPPORTUNITY AS MANDATED IN PROVISO TO SECTION 143(1)(a). 1. SUBMISSION 1.1. The adjustment made while processing the return

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

disallowance of the deduction under Section 80P was not justified solely because the return was filed belatedly. Referring to various judicial precedents and circulars, it was noted that the provisions of Section 80AC, as amended from time to time, and the applicability of Section 143(1)(a)(v) did not support the denial of deduction in this case, especially considering

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

11-07-2023 and 30-07-2023 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2020-21 in the matters of Section u/s 143 (1) and Section 154 of the Act raising therein following grounds of appeal in the respective appeals. 2 TELECRATS INDIA PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

11-07-2023 and 30-07-2023 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2020-21 in the matters of Section u/s 143 (1) and Section 154 of the Act raising therein following grounds of appeal in the respective appeals. 2 TELECRATS INDIA PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

11,66,180/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 22.09.2018 through ITBA portal and duly served upon the assessee. Information under section 3 Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur. 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was called

RAJESH MOTORS (CARS) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the above mentioned assessee's are dismissed

section 143(1), assumes critical\nimportance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in\nmind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will\nessentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of\nthe Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where\na return is processed

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

section 11 to 13 of the Income\ntax Act.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ld. Lower Authorities\ngrossly erred in making addition of Rs. 33,50,772/- to the income of the\nassessee appellant trust while disallowing the benefit of exemption under\nsection 11(2) and 11(1

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)] – wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

Section 11 to 13 of the Income\ntax Act.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ld. Lower Authorities\ngrossly erred in making addition of Rs.33,50,772/- to the income of the\nassessee appellant trust while disallowing the benefit of exemption under\nSection 11(2) and 11(1

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

11 Shankar Lal Ludhani 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S. No. Contents Pages 1 Submission before CIT(A) dated 26.12.2024 1-4 2 Assessment order u/s 147 dated 27.05.2021 5-7 3 Penalty notice u/s 271AAC(1) dated