ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 13(3) and similarly the Learned CIT(A) has erroneously confirmed the additions. By considering the reply of the assessee and giving specific finding in the order the Hon’ble ITAT has deleted the addition. Since all the facts are similar, therefore the addition made by the learned AO deserves to be deleted. Ground No. 3:- Under the facts

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

14. Having considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material available on record. From perusal of the record, we noticed that the AO held in the assessment order that Rs. 42,00,000 has been paid to Smt. Santosh Devi for purchase of land and disallowed the same stating that it is in violation of Section 40A(3

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

14. Having considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material available on record. From perusal of the record, we noticed that the AO held in the assessment order that Rs. 42,00,000 has been paid to Smt. Santosh Devi for purchase of land and disallowed the same stating that it is in violation of Section 40A(3

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

14. Having considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material available on record. From perusal of the record, we noticed that the AO held in the assessment order that Rs. 42,00,000 has been paid to Smt. Santosh Devi for purchase of land and disallowed the same stating that it is in violation of Section 40A(3

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

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

SHIVA CORPORATION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

3)\nby making following disallowance/ additions:\n(i) Disallowance of deduction u/s 80G Rs.7,91,266/-\n(ii) Addition on account of LTCG Rs.38,56,889/-\nAggrieved of the additions so made, assessee preferred appeal before\nId. CIT(A), however Id. CIT(A) without properly appreciating the\nsubmission made and evidence adduced by the assessee, considered\nthe agriculture land

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

3) for AY 2016-17\nand the appeal is still pending for disposal. The assessee company\nhad claimed MAT credit on the basis of return filed.\n5. As regards the issue relating to disallowance under section 14A,\nthe assessee has made substantial investments in equities of\ndomestic companies, income of which in the form of dividend\nwould not form part

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, 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. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

disallowed in assessment order." 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. Earlier, the present appeal of the assessee has also been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 02/12/2019 for want of prosecution. Against the order of the ITAT, the assessee has filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S ARIHANT TRADING CO., BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act @ 30% of Rs. 14,37,81,491/- amounting to Rs. 4,31,34,447/- was made and added back to the income of the assesseee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). Regarding obtaining PAN details of all such transporters at the time of making

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54B. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the agricultural land sold by assessee is not an asset u/s 2(14)(iii)(a) or (b) as these provisions stood then and therefore no capital gains are leviable. The agricultural land sold by the assessee is not urban but rural agricultural

AMIT COLONIZERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of that amount by the lower authorities is on account of incorrect appreciation of the facts and therefore, the same is deleted. 8.2 As regards the payment of Rs. 1,01,000 made on 22.03.2012 made to Jitendrakumar Yadav we note from the arguments that the assessee contended that the amount is paid for security deposit

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

14,794/- which was disallowed as the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on a business of purchase and sale of mutual funds. The AO calculated the disallowance in respect of interest on investment in mutual funds under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed

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

14,794/- which was disallowed as the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on a business of purchase and sale of mutual funds. The AO calculated the disallowance in respect of interest on investment in mutual funds under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

14,794/- which was disallowed as the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on a business of purchase and sale of mutual funds. The AO calculated the disallowance in respect of interest on investment in mutual funds under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

section 11 & 12 of the Act. The\nregistration of the trust was again granted to the trust under new regime vide\nregistration dated 23.09.2021 (APB-88-90), that registration being in new law. The\nsubsequent observation on business activities and benefit to the specified person\nalso covered under the new law which does not warrant the rejection of the\nregistration

SHRI GOVIND NARAIN JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

disallowance of Rs. 16,02,991/- on account of interest paid for funds used in the WIP construction without any valid ground and hence needs to be deleted. 9. The assessee carves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that

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

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

3) has been amended by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 to file the return within time allowed in case of loss claimed to be carried forward for set off u/s 73A. The Provision of section 143(1)(iii) is not applicable as the carry forward of loss relates to year before amendment. During this year the appellant claimed