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 of Rs. 1,27,04,176/- u/s 80-IBA of the act as the assesseehas failed to file the return of income within due date specified in subsection (1) of Section 139 for Assessment Year 2021-22 (Due date 15-03.2022) for claiming the deduction under Chapter-VI of ITA as per the provisions of Section

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. IN this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 1420/KOL/2015. Once the conditions of Section 194C(6) is satisfied, the liability to deduct the TDS would cease and accordingly, application of section

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

139 3 Renu Jain vs. ITO of the Act for AY 2011-12. Later on, the Appellant came to know that as per the provisions of section 54F, the FDR is required to be made under Capital Gain Account Scheme ('CGAS'). Therefore, in order to rectify the procedural mistake, the Appellant on 03 December 2011 en-cashed the FDR with

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)

disallowing set off of speculation loss (F & O) as the same was not claimed in the original return but claimed in revised return where the case attracts the provisions of Section 139(3

RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

disallowing claim of the appellant for set off of the carried forward loss of specified business (u/s 35AD) of Rs. 16,95,003 for the AY 2013-14 out of income earned from specified business in the AY 2017-18. He has erred further in holding that the amendment in section 139(3

RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

disallowing claim of the appellant for set off of the carried forward loss of specified business (u/s 35AD) of Rs. 16,95,003 for the AY 2013-14 out of income earned from specified business in the AY 2017-18. He has erred further in holding that the amendment in section 139(3

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

139(1) of the Act and it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act as it was over riding all proceedings earlier taken overall. The AO denied deduction in assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. The Court at para

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)

3 wherein the Ld. AO confirmed this fact) which is before the expiry of one year from the relevant assessment year and therefore the return filed is a valid return as per the provisions of section 139(5), as the original return was filed under section 139(1) within the due date prescribed. In fact, the assessee complied with

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

3. It is also observed that assessee has failed to deposit the amount in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme (CGAS) and also failed to purchase House Property before the due date of filing of return as per section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 31-7-2012. Based on these observations, AO issued a show-cause that

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P as per the provision\r\nof section 80AC of the Act.\r\n5. 1. Before moving further, let me first surface provision of section 80AC of the Act\r\nwhich comes into force from 01/04/2018. The provision of section 80AC is as under\r\n:-\r\n[Deduction not to be allowed unless return

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

3) of section 143 or this section has\nbeen made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section\nafter the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any\nincome chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of\nthe failure on the part

RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the setting off of the loss of AY 2013-14 with that of the profit of the current year since the return of income for AY 2013-14 was as belated return. 5.3 During the course of the appellate proceedings, the appellant claimed that the phrase "or sub-section (2) of section 73A" was inserted in section 139(3

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance can be made under section 40A(3) – [Section 145, Read with section 40A(3), of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Method of accountings – estimation of income] [Assessment year 2005-06] [In favour of assessee). Ld. CIT(A) has filed to appreciate the above proposition of law and not even stated that how can the further addition on account

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance can be made under section 40A(3) – [Section 145, Read with section 40A(3), of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Method of accountings – estimation of income] [Assessment year 2005-06] [In favour of assessee). Ld. CIT(A) has filed to appreciate the above proposition of law and not even stated that how can the further addition on account

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

3) Further, assessee can also claim exemption, if the capital gain is utilized within the time limit u/s 139(4) even though nothing is deposited in the capital gain account within time limit u/s 139(1) as first limb of section 54(2) states merely section 139 and does not specify any sub section thereof. This conclusion can be validly

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowed while observing\nthat fresh claim for treating him as a 'Non-resident was made without filing\nof revised IT return for the A.Y.2018-19. Having regard to the judicial\npronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s.\nGoetze (India) Ltd. -v- CIT(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was observed by the\nAO that

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings