KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation.\nThe assessee filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur which\nwas disposed off vide order 04-04-2018 by the Id. CIT(A). After giving the\neffect of the above order, the assessed income was reduced to\nRs.1,05,94,050/- which was as declared in the revised return of income\nfiled

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

119 Taxman 433 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal whereby the judgement of Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2002] 123 TAXMAN 1052 (MP) was affirmed. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court as under- 5. We find ourselves in agreement with the view

SHRI KESHORAIPATAN SAHKARI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,KOTA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is vacated. Thus, this Ground of appeal is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations. [Para 22] ii. Solitaire CHS Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT [IT Appeal No. 3155 (Mum.) of 2019, dated 29-11-2019]; (ITAT "G" Bench, Mumbai); iii. Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-Op. Society

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

C)(6) of the Act, once the transporters have provided the PAN details to the deductor then no deduction is required 5 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company to be made on freight payment to such transporters as per section 194C(6) of the Act. 8. The ld AR has submitted that Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

119 Taxman 433 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal whereby the judgement of Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2002] 123 TAXMAN 1052 (MP) was affirmed. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court as under-\n5. We find ourselves in agreement with the view

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

119 of the Act dated 06.09.2021 provided exclusions to section 144B of the Act. Thus, in view of the above background, pending assessment proceedings were taken further. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act seeking details/justification/explanation was issued on 10.09.2021. This notice was sent through ITBA on the given e- mail Id in the latest ROI filed

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

119 of the Act dated 06.09.2021 provided exclusions to section 144B of the Act. Thus, in view of the above background, pending assessment proceedings were taken further. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act seeking details/justification/explanation was issued on 10.09.2021. This notice was sent through ITBA on the given e- mail Id in the latest ROI filed

AMIT SINGH,BHIWADI (ALWAR) vs. DCIT, CPC- BENGALURU, CPC- BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

119 (Kerala) is as under: "Section 36(1)(va), read with sections 2(24)(x) and 43B,. of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Employee's contributions (Section 36(1)(va) v. section 43B) 7 Assessment year 2010-11 - Whether section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate in different fields i.e. former takes care of employee's contribution

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

119 of the Act from 30th September, 2014 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 for all purposes of the Act. Accordingly, the AO levied the penalty @ 10% on the undisclosed income of Rs. 5,73,33,348/- U/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act. Regarding the additional income of Rs. 1,77,039/- disclosed in the ITR, the AO levied

RAJASTHAN OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SOCIETY, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowing the claim of Rs.95,00,000 towards application of income is upheld. Since the accumulated funds invested in the prescribed mode are to be utilised for the purpose for which it is accumulated within next five years, the date of investment is crucial to determine the succeeding five years to exhaust the funds. Since the investment of funds

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)

119 taxmann.com 358 (Karnataka) (PB page 146- 150). In this case it was held that where assessee filed all details before Assessing Officer (AO) that no expenditure under section 14A was attributable to exempt dividend income earned by it during year and AO accepted same, since AO had taken a plausible view, impugned invocation of revision under section 263 merely

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

c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High 27 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT Court or Supreme Court in the case

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance vide his order dated 05.12.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before us. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted his written submission as under :- “ The assessee, during the year had sold 1013 equity shares of the company, and had received share premium

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)

c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

119 of the Act, hereby clarified that for the purpose of making disallowance of ‘other sum chargeable’ u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act, the appropriate portion of the sum which is chargeable to tax under the Act shall form the basis of such disallowance and shall be the same as determined by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction

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)

c) the residential unit has a maximum built-up area of one thousand square feet where such residential unit is situated within the city of Delhi or Mumbai or within twenty-five kilometres from the municipal limits of these cities and one thousand and five hundred square feet at any other place; (d) the built-up area of the shops

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 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit