DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance because of the delay in deposit of contribution and those tax payers who have been processed and intimated u/s 143(1) of the Act would go scot- free even if there is delay in deposit of contribution and even if they do not deposit the contribution. 16. We are of the considered view that the ratio decidendi

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

Section 10(20) as amended by Finance Act 2002. 1.22. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is very humbly prayed that the claim of the appellant for grant of exemption u/s 10(20) may kindly be accepted for all the years under consideration. 1.23. The appellant has spent for development activities in accordance with provisions

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

Section 10(20) as amended by Finance Act 2002. 1.22. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is very humbly prayed that the claim of the appellant for grant of exemption u/s 10(20) may kindly be accepted for all the years under consideration. 1.23. The appellant has spent for development activities in accordance with provisions

SHRI KESHORAIPATAN SAHKARI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,KOTA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. In view of above discussion, it is clear that the A.O. has not examined the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 properly and completed the assessment in this case without conducting proper enquiry on the issue of the said deduction.” Show Cause Notice u/s 263 was issued

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)

disallowance on estimate basis without even rejecting the books of accounts. At this juncture provisions of section 145(3) of the Act is reproduced as under— “145. Method of accounting — (3) Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting provided in sub-section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance could be made under Section 40A(2)(b). (iii) ITAT Mumbai in Indo Bearing Traders Vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai, ITA No. 7119/Mum/2011 dated 10.10.2012 (Copy at case law Paper book page 145

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance could be made under Section 40A(2)(b). (iii) ITAT Mumbai in Indo Bearing Traders Vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai, ITA No. 7119/Mum/2011 dated 10.10.2012 (Copy at case law Paper book page 145

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)

disallowance on adhoc basis which are for the purposes of the business and without rejecting the books of account the adhoc addition cannot be made. At this stage it would be appropriate to deal with the provision of section 145 of the Act which reads as follows; Method of accounting. 145. (1) Income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

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)

disallowance on adhoc basis which are for the purposes of the business and without rejecting the books of account the adhoc addition cannot be made. At this stage it would be appropriate to deal with the provision of section 145 of the Act which reads as follows; Method of accounting. 145. (1) Income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance vide his order dated 05.12.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before us. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted his written submission as under :- “ The assessee, during the year had sold 1013 equity shares of the company, and had received share premium

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

2 lacs and we also find that the assessee’s own past history has also not being taken into consideration. Once the books of accounts have been rejected due to non-maintenance of stock register, qualitative records, etc and provisions of section 145(3) have been invoked, the authorities cannot resort to make addition on an adhoc basis to prevent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

disallowing the claim made by the Appellant and the addition of Rs\n4,43,36,980- is hereby deleted. These grounds are allowed.\nGround No. 5 is general in nature.\nIn the result, the appeal is allowed.\"\n5. Feeling dissatisfied with the above finding so recorded in the\norder of the Id. CIT(A) the revenue has preferred the present

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

disallowance Amount (in Rs.) 1. Trading addition by applying the GP rate of 20.00% 24,99,795/- 2. Undisclosed sales 18,83130/- Total Additions 63,48,255/- 7. As the assessee aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-4, Jaipur. As the appeal of the assessee was partly

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

disallowance Amount (in Rs.) 1. Trading addition by applying the GP rate of 20.00% 24,99,795/- 2. Undisclosed sales 18,83130/- Total Additions 63,48,255/- 7. As the assessee aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-4, Jaipur. As the appeal of the assessee was partly

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

disallowance Amount (in Rs.) 1. Trading addition by applying the GP rate of 20.00% 24,99,795/- 2. Undisclosed sales 18,83130/- Total Additions 63,48,255/- 7. As the assessee aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-4, Jaipur. As the appeal of the assessee was partly

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

disallowance Amount (in Rs.) 1. Trading addition by applying the GP rate of 20.00% 24,99,795/- 2. Undisclosed sales 18,83130/- Total Additions 63,48,255/- 7. As the assessee aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-4, Jaipur. As the appeal of the assessee was partly

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

disallowance Amount (in Rs.) 1. Trading addition by applying the GP rate of 20.00% 24,99,795/- 2. Undisclosed sales 18,83130/- Total Additions 63,48,255/- 7. As the assessee aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-4, Jaipur. As the appeal of the assessee was partly

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

disallowance Amount (in Rs.) 1. Trading addition by applying the GP rate of 20.00% 24,99,795/- 2. Undisclosed sales 18,83130/- Total Additions 63,48,255/- 7. As the assessee aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-4, Jaipur. As the appeal of the assessee was partly