SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,30,65,828/- which includes addition of Rs. 42,379/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,23,519/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB

SHRI BITHAL DASS MUNDRA ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

153B and 153C ITA 433/JP/2018_ 10 Bithal Dass Mundra Vs DCIT after six assessment years - and for the relevant assessment year or years is inserted. We however submit this amendment is effective from 01.04.2017; it does apply where search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act is initiated or requisition under section 132A of the Income

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

disallowance Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 5. Ground No. 1 of appeal relates to passing ex-parte assessment order under section 144 read with section 153B(1)(b

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

disallowance Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 5. Ground No. 1 of appeal relates to passing ex-parte assessment order under section 144 read with section 153B(1)(b

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 almost accepted the income disclosed by the assessee. However the Ld. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per para 5 of the assessment order scanned below: - ITA 419/JP/2018_ 8 Shri Ashok Kr. Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT The perusal of the aforesaid paras of the assessment

SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 almost accepted the income disclosed by the assessee. However the Learned Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per para 5 of the assessment order scanned below: - The perusal of the aforesaid paras of the assessment order disclosed that the Learned Assessing Officer has initiated

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of deduction claimed by the\nassessee under section 35AD of the IT Act, 1961. The AO also initiated\npenalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961\nseparately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealed\nincome. Accordingly, notice under section 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act\nwas issued and served upon the assessee

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

B’, JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 669 to 672/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 to 2018-19 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., cuke ACIT/DCIT, Vs. J-2, Main Road, Jawahar Nagar

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

B’, JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 669 to 672/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 to 2018-19 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., cuke ACIT/DCIT, Vs. J-2, Main Road, Jawahar Nagar

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

B’, JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 669 to 672/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 to 2018-19 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., cuke ACIT/DCIT, Vs. J-2, Main Road, Jawahar Nagar

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

1. 1. The main source of receipts/income of the assessee is annual fees from its members, rent, interest and Misc. receipts. In the present case the ld. AO has issued the notice u/s 148 on dt. 28.02.2018(PB38)on the reasons (PB 39) that “During the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee has not filed any return of income.As

SMT. PRIYANKA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Appeal is allowed

153B (1)(b)on 27.12.2017 accepting total income as offered by the assessee.The assessee did not file any appeal against the said assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.2017. 5. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB, and therefore, SCN u/s 274 r/w 27AAB was issued on 27.12.2017for imposing penalty. The assessee, in response, however the AO not feeling

M/S SARAF EXPORT PALACE,CHURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

Appeal is allowed

153B (1)(b)on 27.12.2017 accepting total income as offered by the assessee.The assessee did not file any appeal against the said assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.2017. 5. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB, and therefore, SCN u/s 274 r/w 27AAB was issued on 27.12.2017for imposing penalty. The assessee, in response, however the AO not feeling

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

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that