GAYTRI DEVI SHARMA,CHOMU vs. ITO WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

127 to record the reasons for affecting the transfer of the case from one assessing officer to another. In a recent decision rendered on 29 April, 2024 by ITAT Delhi in the case of YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT ITA No.1020/Del/2019, the Hon’ble Bench has quashed the assessment observing In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

127 of the Act shall apply to the assessment made in accordance the said Scheme subject to the following exceptions, modifications and adaptations Clause (2) of the Notification Nos. 60 and 61 of 2020 dated 13-8-2020 enable the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General in charge of National e-Assessment Centre, at any stage of the assessment

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

127 of the Act shall apply to the assessment made in accordance the said Scheme subject to the following exceptions, modifications and adaptations Clause (2) of the Notification Nos. 60 and 61 of 2020 dated 13-8-2020 enable the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General in charge of National e-Assessment Centre, at any stage of the assessment

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Section 43B can’t be invoked for making additions on account of tax liabilities where the same has not been claimed as deduction?” In the case, Hon’ble Court has held as under: 6. We have heard both the parties. 7. In view of the observations made by the Delhi High Court in Noble & Hewitt (India) (P) (Supra), as reproduced

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Section 43B can’t be invoked for making additions on account of tax liabilities where the same has not been claimed as deduction?” In the case, Hon’ble Court has held as under: 6. We have heard both the parties. 7. In view of the observations made by the Delhi High Court in Noble & Hewitt (India) (P) (Supra), as reproduced

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Section 43B can’t be invoked for making additions on account of tax liabilities where the same has not been claimed as deduction?” In the case, Hon’ble Court has held as under: 6. We have heard both the parties. 7. In view of the observations made by the Delhi High Court in Noble & Hewitt (India) (P) (Supra), as reproduced

FAREED ANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

127 taxman 130 (Calcutta) (case law page-62 to 68) adjudicating an identical issue held that “Therefore, from a careful perusal of the provisions made in section 43B it can be said that section 43B can be applied on when the tax or duty has been claimed an expenditure but the same tax had not been paid. In our view

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

disallowing loss incurred by the assessee in transaction on stock exchange. Further, the addition of Rs. 2,19,763/- has been made invoking provisions of section 69C on the presumption that for alleged accommodation entry of loss such expenses ought to be incurred. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer, assessee preferred an appeal before

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

127/-. Against this order, both Revenue and Assessee are in appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged correctness of action of Ld. CIT(A) for confirming the additions made by the AO. 4. Ground no. 1 (i) to (iii) is against the addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure made by invoking the provisions of section

STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

127/-. Against this order, both Revenue and Assessee are in appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged correctness of action of Ld. CIT(A) for confirming the additions made by the AO. 4. Ground no. 1 (i) to (iii) is against the addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure made by invoking the provisions of section

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

section 68 of the IT Act to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the IT Act. Further ld. AO noted that in case of other five case the addition of Rs. 79,00,000/- was made because the PAN number and address was not mentioned in the confirmation and the audit report filed, therefore, ld. AO treated as non-genuine transaction

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F Rs 94,39,201/- and the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deciding alternate Ground No.4 of the assessee which was before him on this issue.’ 2. The learned AO has erred in reopening the case of the assessee after rejecting most genuine objections of the assessee against reopening

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GURU PRAGYA INFRA (P) LTD., JAIPUR

disallowed or the claim is to be restricted proportionately? 9. Each of the issues stated above along with observations of the AO and the contentions of the assessee in relation to the same is dealt with as under:- 9.1 Who is the Local Authority to issue the completion certificate of the housing project?. 9.2 In this regard

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)

section 263 of the Act, the twin condition is required to be satisfied which not fulfilled in this case. On the issue observed by the ld. PCIT the sufficient enquiry has already been done by the assessing officer and as regards the debatable issue the ld. AO has taken a plausible view of the matter and for that matter

THE AJMER COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND SAVING SOCIETY LIMITED AJMER,AJMER vs. CIT(A), NFAC, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) whereas on the contrary the assessee claimed that the business of the appellant society is to provide credit facility to its members and accepts the deposits from its members only to develop the habits of saving amongst themselves. The ld. A/R of the assessee has also argued that the surplus

SATISH KUMAR SAINI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

127(2) of the Act. Despite issuance of statutory\nnotices under Sections 142(1) and 133(6), the assessee failed to comply\nand did not furnish the requisite details. Accordingly, in view of repeated\nnon-compliance and the matter becoming time-barred, the assessment\nwas completed ex parte under Section 144 of the Act on the basis of\nmaterial available

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory