MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(2) on very same day has to\nbe treated as invalid and assessment is vitiated due to non-application of mind by\nAO-Therefore, on all counts reassessment proceedings initiated by AO and\nuphheld by CIT(A) is not in accordance with law-Assessee's appeal allowed.\n\nFurther on the perusal of the order sheet it is clearly

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

143(1)(a)(iv) can be invoked with reference to other clauses like, for example, the following 19 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR wherein the auditor is required to express his opinion with reference to disallowance: Clause 21(b)-Amounts inadmissible under section 40(a),  Clause 21(d)-Disallowance/deemed income under section 40A(3

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

143(1)(a)(iv)\ncan be invoked with reference to other clauses like, for example, the\nfollowing wherein the auditor is required to express his opinion with\nreference to disallowance:\nclause 21(b)- Amounts inadmissible under section 40(a),\nclause 21(d)-Disallowance/deemed income under section 40A(3

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

disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and adding back Rs.1,63,78,648/- claimed as expense towards Carriage Inward and Rs.1,13,00,980/- claimed as expense towards Carriage Outward, and such additions shall stand deleted.” 28 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company 9. In light of above discussions and in the entirety of facts

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(1) (c)". 3 ACIT vs. Global Institute of Technology i. "Whether Id. CIT(A) justified in holding entire reassessment is considered void and illegal without considering the merits of the addition of disallowances from interest expenditure of Rs.47,13,333/-". j. "Appellant craves the right to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal before the Hon. ITAT

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , 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)

143(1)(a)(iv) can be invoked with reference to other clauses like, for example, the following wherein the auditor is required to express his opinion with reference to disallowance ⚫Clause 21(b)-Amounts inadmissible under section 40(a), ⚫ Clause 21(d)-Disallowance/deemed income under section 40A(3

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3) read with Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” The ld. A/R now raised the main issue in this case is whether the ld. Pr. CIT was justified in invoking jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thereby proposing to make disallowance

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

143(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

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

Section 153C of the Act. As per standard practice of the Department the notice u/s 153C is issued immediately after recording of satisfaction. v) Therefore, the whole proceedings initiated u/s 153c is bad in law and liable to be dropped. B. Order u/s 143(3) without issue appropriate Show Cause notice i) The learned assessing authority had not issued

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

Section 153C of the Act. As per standard practice of the Department the notice u/s 153C is issued immediately after recording of satisfaction. v) Therefore, the whole proceedings initiated u/s 153c is bad in law and liable to be dropped. B. Order u/s 143(3) without issue appropriate Show Cause notice i) The learned assessing authority had not issued

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 either in writing or in electronic mode. Thus, the CPC center has failed to follow the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Your honour can verify that in the intimation made under section 143(1), f) CPC has not followed the above provisos by giving proper opportunity to the assessee to defend its case

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

disallowance and deleting the said addition of Rs.63,95,407. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of making addition of Rs. 4,24,14,300 u/s 69. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and against

RAJESH MOTORS (CARS) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the above mentioned assessee's are dismissed

section 143(3) would have to\nface disallowance because of the delay in deposit of contribution and\nthose tax payers

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

Section 40A(3) of the\nAct, salary has been kept at just less than 20,000/- since the same would have been liable\nto be disallowed if salary payment was greater than 20,000/- in cash. This shows that it is\na pre meditated action on the part of the assessee trust with the motive of siphoning off\nfunds

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 148 was valid and well within jurisdiction. He had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment because of the failure of the assessee company to furnish fully and truly all material particulars necessary for its assessment. There is no merit in this ground of appeal. This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed

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

disallow the\nappellant's deduction claim under section 80P while processing\nthe return under section 143(1) of the Act. Consequently, all the\nraised appeal grounds are rejected.\n7. As a result, the appeal is hereby dismissed.\"\n4.2 It is not imperative to repeat the facts of the case for the assessment year\n2019-20 as the issue raised

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowing the amount of Rs 6,98,230/- under section 143 sub-section 1. It is trite that under section 143 sub-section 1 clause a, prima facie adjustments are permissible only in respect of claims, the incorrectness of which is apparent from information in the return. Debatable claims are not liable to such prima facie adjustments, which are permissible

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , 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)

Disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading “C.-Deductions in respect of certain income”, if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) Addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which