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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(2) of the Act was issued before passing the assessment order. This fact is also accepted by Ld A.O. in his remand report. 6. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in restricting the deduction u/s 10B of the Act to Rs 9,11,44,609/- as against claim

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

ii) The payment made by the assessee does not fall under Rule 6DD of the I.T.Rules,\n1962. The list provided under Rule 6DD of the I.T.Rules, 1962. is exhaustive and\nundersigned of the view that when the payment is made in contravention of section\n40A(3) of the Act though the payment is genuine, that cannot be allowed, because

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)

3. Adjustment made while processing the return of income is illegal because the case of the assessee company does not fall in any of the below clauses of Section 143(1). 4. Section 143(1)(a)(i) i. It is submitted that u/s 143(1)(a)(i) only an arithmetical error in the return of income can be adjusted

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 14A,\nthe assessee has made substantial investments in equities of\ndomestic companies, income of which in the form of dividend\nwould not form

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)

143(3)/153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.03.2015 determining total income of Rs. 97,78,302/- after giving set off of earlier losses of Rs. 1,33,54,931/- by making following addition – (i) Income over expenditure Rs. 1,11,49,815/- (ii) Addition of Rs. 20,31,150/- registration receipts treating as revenue receipts

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from\nany information in the return;\n(iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year\nforwhich set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due\ndate specified under sub-section (1) of section 139;\n(iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income]\nindicated

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)

ii), only disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under Sub-Section (1) of Section 139 can be made. 1.8 Section 143(1)(a)(iv) 1.8.i. It is submitted that u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) only a claim/expenditure whose disallowance

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

ii) of\nthe Act, which apply to AYs 2018-19 and onwards, the\nappellant is clearly ineligible to claim the exemption under\nsection 80P of the Act.\n6.9 Hence, there is no flaw in the AO's decision to disallow the\nappellant's deduction claim under section 80P while processing\nthe return under section 143(1) of the Act. Consequently

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 of Rs. 2,53,26,820/- under section

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

ii) In this regard your kind attention is also invited towards the provisions of section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, before amendment in 2021, which reads as under: Assessment - Section 143 (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer

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

ii) In this regard your kind attention is also invited towards the provisions of section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, before amendment in 2021, which reads as under: Assessment - Section 143 (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer

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)

ii an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure 82[or increase ill income] indicated

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

ii)\nin holding that because the Assessee has surplus from carrying out work, it\nis not undertaking charitable activities.\n(iii)\nin holding that the Assessee is carrying our non-genuine activities.\n(iv) in invoking Section 40A(3) against the Appellant.\n9.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend and modify all or any ground of appeal

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

3) of section 143, two conditions are required to be satisfied; (i) The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; and (ii) Such escapement occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee either (a) to make a return of income under section 139 or in response

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

ii) An incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in\nthe return;\n(iii) Disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off\nof loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section\n(1) of section 139;\n(iv) Disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019.\n6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based\non various irregularities found during survey proceedings u./s 133A at the\npremises of the assessee, coupled with the facts gathered is carried out during the\nassessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13\n(1)(c)(ii