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)

disallowance of deduction claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading “C.— 14 Aravali Buildhome LLP Deductions in respect of certain incomes” (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

139(1) of the Act is 30th November of that assessment\nyear. The Ld. CIT(A), however, at Pg 39, Para 11 held that except making general\nclaim assessee could not submit any statutory compliance involving such audit\nreport and its filing as per law and thus upheld the levy of interest\n21. It is submitted that for the year

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-1AB, 80-1B, 80-IC, 80-ID, or section 80-IE if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said

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)

139(1) of the Act so as to substantiate the claim as applicable as per the provisions under section 80AC of the IT Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed

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)

disallowance or addition made by the CPC in the 143(1) proceedings. For better understanding of the intimation proceedings, section 143(1) of the IT Act is reproduced as follows: 5 Ocean Exim India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO "143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139

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

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

section 139(1), same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va). The Hon’ble bench

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said

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)

1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs.53,24,330/-. In such return, the assessee did not claim speculation loss of Rs. 69,93,450/-. Such return was, however, revised under Section 139(5) on 29.11.2006. The Assessing Officer disallowed

DOLCAS BOTANOSYS PVT. LTD. BIKANER,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE/ACIT, C-1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” Para

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in upholding the addition of INR 17,09,798/- without considering and appreciating the intent and purpose of the provisions of Section 54F of the Act. The addition so confirmed by the CIT(A), being totally contrary to the provisions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 139(1), same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va). The Hon’ble bench

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1 )(va) of the IT Act" • CIT vs.Jaipur

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU/ DCIT, CR.1 JAIPUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1 )(va) of the IT Act" • CIT vs.Jaipur

THE EARTH HOUSE RESORTS LLP, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1 )(va) of the IT Act" • CIT vs.Jaipur

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1 )(va) of the IT Act" • CIT vs.Jaipur

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. ADIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1 )(va) of the IT Act" • CIT vs.Jaipur

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1 )(va) of the IT Act" • CIT vs.Jaipur

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)

139 cannot be considered - Held, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference to additional income brought to tax over and above income returned by assessee in response to notice issued under section 153A and, therefore, once returned income under section 153A is accepted by Assessing Officer, it can neither be a case of concealment of income