ARJUN RAM GURJAR,VILLAGE GUDA MANPURA, TEHSIL MASUDA, BEAWAR, AJMER vs. CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

197/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

disallowed the same. The Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of his predecessor in AY 2012-13, deleted the disallowance made by the AO. 9.2 It was submitted by the ld AR that the assessee was incorporated with the main object of infrastructure facilities for the industries and development of industries in the State of Rajasthan. The assessee

DCIT, C-2, AJMER vs. JAI NARAYAN AGARWAL,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowance ultimately directed works out to nearly 110% of that sum, i.e., Rs.52,56,197/-. By no stretch of imagination can Section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section 37, the expenses which are made are jof capital nature, therefore, it cannot be taken as revenue expenditures. In that

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section 37, the expenses which are made are jof capital nature, therefore, it cannot be taken as revenue expenditures. In that

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section 37, the expenses which are made are jof capital nature, therefore, it cannot be taken as revenue expenditures. In that

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section 37, the expenses which are made are jof capital nature, therefore, it cannot be taken as revenue expenditures. In that

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section 37, the expenses which are made are jof capital nature, therefore, it cannot be taken as revenue expenditures. In that

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section 37, the expenses which are made are jof capital nature, therefore, it cannot be taken as revenue expenditures. In that

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section 37, the expenses which are made are jof capital nature, therefore, it cannot be taken as revenue expenditures. In that

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section 37, the expenses which are made are jof capital nature, therefore, it cannot be taken as revenue expenditures. In that

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

197 (Delhi), similer view was taken. 6.9 he has relied on two decisions of Tribunal where no appeal was preferred. Therefore, they cannot discriminate between two different assessee. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that on first issue regarding Section 37, the expenses which are made are jof capital nature, therefore, it cannot be taken as revenue expenditures. In that

INDEXONE TRADECONE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

197/- which was used for business purposes, otherwise also, depreciation cannot be denied on block of asset ready for use. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements: (1) CIT vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 311(AII): When the asset is ready for use, entitled to depreciation. (2) CIT Vs. Sonal Gum Industries (2010)233 CTR (Guj) 516: User

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

197 of 2012 whereby the High Court held that the\nTribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,07,00,000 of \"on money\" said to have\nbeen received with respect to subject land of the assessee holding that the question what was the\nprice of the land at the rel-evant time, was a pure question

M/S JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST,143, GOMEZ DEFENCE COLONY, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), , JAIPUR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

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

section 13 of the Act. At the same time, assessee was also asked to furnish details of all persons to whom the assesseehad paid salary exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/-; to furnish information regarding qualification of such persons and the duties assigned to them. Copy of their appointment letter was also sought for. 23. Assessee submitted reply dated

M/S JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

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

section 13 of the Act. At the same time, assessee was also asked to furnish details of all persons to whom the assesseehad paid salary exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/-; to furnish information regarding qualification of such persons and the duties assigned to them. Copy of their appointment letter was also sought for. 23. Assessee submitted reply dated

SHISHPAL SINGH JADAUN,KARAULI vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

197 Section 263-power of revision by commissioner AO completed assessment at NIL assessee involved in manufacture/trading of cable/copper wire- declared income from interest & commission as business income accepted by AO-CIT invoked see 263 and set-aside the order of AO directing him to consider the said income as income from other sources and not from business-whether

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy