NIRMAL KUMAR BARDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

131 (Raj.) deleted the disallowance. 4. Regarding both the issues relating to PF & ESI, the controversy is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 16249/2014 (The State of Rajasthan CIT, Jaipur vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), hence the issues are decided subject to SLP.” Therefore, in view of the earler decision which was followed

TRANSINDIA NONWOVENS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 267/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 DCIT, cuke Transindia Nonwovens Private Limited P-47 P-47 Raj Angan Society NRI Colony, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru. Sec. 24, Jaipur

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which provides that the definition of due dates as per section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which provides that the definition of due dates as per section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which provides that the definition of due dates as per section

RMC GEMS INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

131 (Raj.) deleted the disallowance. 7 RMC Gems India Ltd. vs ADIT CPC,Bengaluru 4. Regarding both the issues relating to PF & ESI, the controversy is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 16249/2014 (The State of Rajasthan CIT, Jaipur vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), hence the issues are decided subject to SLP.” Therefore, in view

M/S MOJIKA REAL ESTATE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

d) of the Act, a summon is to be issued to the person concerned. On the other hand, a statement u/s 131(1A) of the Act could be recorded by the Pr. DG or DG or Pr. Director or Director or ADIT or DDIT or authorized officer of income tax for making any investigation or enquiry where even no proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR vs. M/S MOJIKA REAL ESTATE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

d) of the Act, a summon is to be issued to the person concerned. On the other hand, a statement u/s 131(1A) of the Act could be recorded by the Pr. DG or DG or Pr. Director or Director or ADIT or DDIT or authorized officer of income tax for making any investigation or enquiry where even no proceedings

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

disallowed, contribution to Jaipur National University which has not been held to be application of income in view of violation of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) of the Act, and addition to fixed Assets which have not been allowed as application of income. Taking into consideration all these issues in addition to systematic generation of surplus

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

131 ITR 451)(SC) 52 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. which has no application to the facts of this case as the decision is in the context of an assessee making a claim for partition and requesting the AO to pass an order under section 25A of the 1922 Act. The assessment order was passed

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

131 ITR 451)(SC) 52 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. which has no application to the facts of this case as the decision is in the context of an assessee making a claim for partition and requesting the AO to pass an order under section 25A of the 1922 Act. The assessment order was passed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

131 ITR 451)(SC) 52 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. which has no application to the facts of this case as the decision is in the context of an assessee making a claim for partition and requesting the AO to pass an order under section 25A of the 1922 Act. The assessment order was passed

CHANDRA SHEKHAR TIWARI,FLAT NO. B-9, D-224, TANWAR RESIDENCY, TULSI MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), 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)

D-224,Tanwar Residency, Tulsi Ward 1(2) Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACNPT 8254A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 21/06/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh

SHIIV VEG PRO PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 36(1)(va). No substantial question of law arises out of the impugned orders of the ITAT. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M-s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.177-2011); Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.189-2011), followed." 2.6 The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench has also

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 646/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 Saket Agarwal cuke The ITO, 27, Everest Vihar, Kings Road, Vs. Ward-2(3), Jaipur. Nirman Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, 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)

131 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.) (HC) 3 M/S. READY ROTI INDIA PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 1. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation

NICE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,1-A,KESHEV NAGAR, CIVIL LINES,JAIPUR,RAJASTHAN,INDIA,302019 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 60/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 cuke M/s. Nice Telecommunications (P) Ltd. ACIT Vs. 1-A,Keshav Nagar, Civil Lines Circle-6, Jaipur Jaipur – 302 019 LFkk

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 79 & 80/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 cuke Taj Granites Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, B-307(A), Road No. 14 VKI Area, Vs. CPC, Jaipur. Bengaluru

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 79 & 80/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 cuke Taj Granites Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, B-307(A), Road No. 14 VKI Area, Vs. CPC, Jaipur. Bengaluru