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.

143(2) by the ld. AO was void ab initio and was liable to be quashed holding that the appellant did not dispute such issue before although the second round of assessment was completed at the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. 2 M/s. Handmade Paper & Board Industries, Jaipur. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

143(3) read with section 153A dated 25.03.2015. During the course of assessment 5 M/s Vijayeta Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company has purchased certain pieces of land vide six separate registered sale deeds and the sale consideration has been discharged partly in cash. Thereafter, a show cause was issued

M/S. RAJDHANI CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4 JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 292BB of the Act. 6. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The undisputed facts as emerged from the records are that the original assessment was completed U/s 143(3) of the Act on 01/03/2013. Thereafter the A.O. issued notice U/s 148 of the Act on 01/11/2013 to reassess the income

M/S. KAIZEN ORGANICS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

disallowance of Rs. 8,04,524/-. 3. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing. The assessee has also raised an additional ground as under :- “ In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the ld. AO has erred in completing assessment u/s 147 without issuing notice

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

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

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

disallowed the said amount as per the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act while passing order under section 147 rws 143

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) was right in restricting the disallowance from Rs.6,99,228/- to Rs.4,81,614/- made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act without appreciating the fact that this violation of the provision of the Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has been clearly mentioned

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance of commission payment and freight payment total amounting to Rs. 12,83,51,717/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) both on merits of the addition as well as validity of reopening of the assessment. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition made by the AO. However, the ground raised

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

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

143(1) and the learned CIT(A) are bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. The learned AO has erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 16,46,879/- under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said disallowance. 3

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

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

143(3) of the Act. A clearcut distinction between Best Judgment Assessment and in the manner provided under section 144 is required to be understood while resorting to the provision of Section 145(3). Under Section 145(3) the assessment is required to be in the manner under Section 144 of the Act only. However, it is well known that

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