RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 144 of the Act in the assessment order is incorrect or at best related to adhoc disallowance of expenses

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 144 of the Act in the assessment order is incorrect or at best related to adhoc disallowance of expenses

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

144/- made by the ld. AO\nby disallowing the deduction u/s 80P which was made without any basis and also\nerred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their\ntrue perspective and sense. Hence the addition so made by the ld. AO and\nconfirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is also being contrary

DEEP JYOTI COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

144 which is illegal and unjustified. We pray to for goodselves kindly allow this ground of appeal. 8 Deep Jyoti Company, Jaipur. In the appellant case the A.O. reject the books of account only and only on the basis of not filling confirmation and address of the outstanding creditors for labour and raw form material of Rs14

PALAS GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SIKAR vs. ITO, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

144 ex parte, without adjudicating on the\nlegal question of whether deduction under Section 80P could exceed the\nassessee's Gross Total Income. The CIT(A) failed to examine the contents of the\nreturn or consider the legal bar under Section 80A(2), resulting in a mechanically\nsustained addition of 34,49,015/- by disallowing

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 144. Thus, while disbelieving the claim of the assessee and that too in part he has not given the required notice pointing out any specific defects in the books of account and thereby proceeded to made the lump sum disallowance

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

144 taxmann.com 2 confirmed the disallowance made by AO. 3. The relevant provisions of section 40(a)(ii) & 2(43) where

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

Section 144. 9.3 Thus in the present case, it is seen that the books of account were not produced before the A.O along with the bills and vouchers for expenses. 28 ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-JAIPUR VS NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI Accordingly, the A.O was unable to verify the same. Hence there was reason for the A.O to exercise

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action\nof the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 12,16,500.\n4. The assessee company craves its right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 144 he was required to disallow interest and remuneration paid to partners as per section 184(5) — He thus

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 144 he was required to disallow interest and remuneration paid to partners as per section 184(5) — He thus

M/S TRADITIONAL GALLERY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of Rs. 33,83,847/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the AO, sustained the addition of Rs. 91,15,011/-. Now the assessee

M/S TRADITIONAL GALLERY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of Rs. 33,83,847/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the AO, sustained the addition of Rs. 91,15,011/-. Now the assessee

RAYS POWER EXPERTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

Disallowance under section 14A of ITA 1961 of Rs.69,374 was made. Notice under section 250 were issued, however, there was no compliance and appeal is being decided based on material available on record. Grounds of appeal are adjudicated as follows- Ground of Appeal One is general in nature and not adjudicated thus. Ground of Appeal Two is qua addition

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

disallowance because of the delay in deposit of contribution and\nthose tax payers who have been processed and intimated under section\n143(1) would go scot-free even if there is delay in deposit of\ncontribution and even if they do not deposit the contribution. Thus it\nis opined that the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court is equally\napplicable

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action\nof the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 12,16,500.\n\n4. The assessee company craves its right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144 of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act”] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2), Jaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the learned AO under section 147/144

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

144 rws 144B dated 27.02.2024, as well\r\nas the action taken u/s 147/148 and notices are bad in law, illegal, invalid, void-\r\nab-intio on facts of the case, for want of or without jurisdiction, without proper\r\napproval and satisfaction of higher authorities u/s 151 of the Act, and also barred\r\nby limitation and various other