VINOD KUMAR MITTAL,BEAWAR vs. ITO, AJMER

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked at all. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals) was not justified in confirming disallowance

RATAN TAXTILES P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of stipend expenses @ 20% as against 75% applied by the A.O. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend U/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act.” 20. Since the parties have adopted the same arguments

DEEPAK VEGPRO (P) LTD.,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

disallowance of deduction under section 80IA claimed on the profits of the Wind Mills.” ITA No. 110/JP/14 3. In ground No.1 of assessee’s appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs 70 lacs under section 2(22)(e

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 42,00,000/- U/s 40A(3) of the Act.” 3 ITA No. 250/JP/2019 & 2 Ors. M/s Skyways Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT Grounds of ITA No. 251/JP/2019 A.Y. 2015-16. “ 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 64,96,001/- u/s 2(22)(e

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 42,00,000/- U/s 40A(3) of the Act.” 3 ITA No. 250/JP/2019 & 2 Ors. M/s Skyways Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT Grounds of ITA No. 251/JP/2019 A.Y. 2015-16. “ 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 64,96,001/- u/s 2(22)(e

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 42,00,000/- U/s 40A(3) of the Act.” 3 ITA No. 250/JP/2019 & 2 Ors. M/s Skyways Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT Grounds of ITA No. 251/JP/2019 A.Y. 2015-16. “ 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 64,96,001/- u/s 2(22)(e

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallows claim of deduction by the cooperative societies on\ninterest earned from Nationalised bank as per the provisions of section 80P(2)(d)\nof the Act.\nThe provisions of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act are reproduced as under.-\n\"80P (2)(d): Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross\ntotal income

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

disallowed in assessment order." 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. Earlier, the present appeal of the assessee has also been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 02/12/2019 for want of prosecution. Against the order of the ITAT, the assessee has filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has further contended that since the assessment was not pending as on date of search and there is no incriminating material found and seized disclosing any income on account of deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has further contended that since the assessment was not pending as on date of search and there is no incriminating material found and seized disclosing any income on account of deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has further contended that since the assessment was not pending as on date of search and there is no incriminating material found and seized disclosing any income on account of deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has further contended that since the assessment was not pending as on date of search and there is no incriminating material found and seized disclosing any income on account of deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has further contended that since the assessment was not pending as on date of search and there is no incriminating material found and seized disclosing any income on account of deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return

M/S. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ADD.CIT. RANGE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

22. Now, coming to the main issue as to the applicability of proviso to section 2(15) for the impugned assessment year 2010-11 to the assessee society by virtue of which, can it be denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. In this regard, the contention of the ld A/R is that the matter relating

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

22. Now, coming to the main issue as to the applicability of proviso to section 2(15) for the impugned assessment year 2010-11 to the assessee society by virtue of which, can it be denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. In this regard, the contention of the ld A/R is that the matter relating

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

22. Now, coming to the main issue as to the applicability of proviso to section 2(15) for the impugned assessment year 2010-11 to the assessee society by virtue of which, can it be denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. In this regard, the contention of the ld A/R is that the matter relating

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section