SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

disallowed due to\nreason that assessee has failed to submit any documentary evidence in support\nof his claim. Therefore, the whole consideration of Rs. 69,90,000/- is considered\nas Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee. Penalty proceedings\nu/s 270A of the Act is initiated on this issue for underreporting of income.\nFurther, the assessee

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

disallowed the income of Rs. 33,50,772/- (33,45,494/-\n+5,278/-) and also taxed the same @ Maximum Marginal Rate U/s 164(2).\nThe Id. AO has alleged that the assessee trust is doing business activities in\nand not complying statutory provisions of the Act. Thus the AO has completed the\nassessment assessing the income of\nthe assessee

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)

Section 37(1) National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. CIT Citation: [2021] 124 taxmann.com 72 (Delhi - Trib.) Held: CSR expenses are statutorily disallowed under Explanation 2

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

disallowed the income of Rs.33,50,772/- (33,45,494/-\n+5,278/-) and also taxed the same @ Maximum Marginal Rate U/s 164(2).\nThe Id. AO has alleged that the assessee trust is doing business activities in\nand not complying statutory provisions of the Act.\n\nThus the AO has completed the assessment assessing the income of\nthe assessee

ITO, JAIPUR vs. BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

disallowance of deduction. 5. That authorities below has grossly erred in law and facts in not concluding the documents/evidence, statements placed on record in the true perspective. That the appellant reserves his rights to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before date of appeal hearing.” 4. Regarding Ground No. 1(a), at the time of hearing

BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

disallowance of deduction. 5. That authorities below has grossly erred in law and facts in not concluding the documents/evidence, statements placed on record in the true perspective. That the appellant reserves his rights to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before date of appeal hearing.” 4. Regarding Ground No. 1(a), at the time of hearing

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nAssessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction of\nAssessing Officer

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nAssessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction of\nAssessing Officer

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nAssessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction of\nAssessing Officer

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nAssessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction of\nAssessing Officer

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n- Assessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction of\nAssessing

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

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

Section 37(1)\n\nNational Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. CIT\nCitation:\n[2021] 124 taxmann.com 72\n(Delhi\nTrib.)\nHeld: CSR expenses are statutorily disallowed under Explanation 2

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In fact, the disallowance is made on conjectures, surmises and suspicion. It is setteled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. Vs. CIT. It has been further

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

2(1), Kannur[2012] 20 Taxmann.com 667 (Coch) 14. CBDT Instruction No. 17/2008 dated 26-11-2008 (F.No. 228/3/3008 – ITA-III) 15. CIT vs HCL Comnet Sytesm Ltd. [2008] 174 Taxman 118 SC 16. Rule of Income Tax Rules, 1962 17. CBDT Circular No.9/2006 dated 10-10-2006 18. Zenith Processing Mills Ltd. vs CIT- MANU/GJ/0049/1955 19.CBDT Circular

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 45 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. Ground No. 1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 45 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. Ground No. 1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 45 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. Ground No. 1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that