RAMA KANT SABOO,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7, BABA SIDDHANATHA BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of exchange loss of ₹6,91,662 claimed under Section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequential levy of interest under Section 234D

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the ground no

234D and withdrawal of interest u/s 244A of the Act, no arguments have been advanced by the ld. AR during the course of hearing and the levy and withdrawal of interest being consequential in nature, the said ground taken by the assessee is dismissed. M/s Allen Career Institute Vs. JCIT, Kota 4. Now coming to ground No. 2 where

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 59/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 7/58, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Advpa 6150 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 27/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Learned C.I.T. (A) Has Erred For Not Considering The Issue For Validity Of Issue Notice U/S 148 Of I.T. Act, 1961, While There Was No Escapement Of Income On Part Of Assessee. The Initiation Of Proceedings Was Only On Behest Of I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Who Has Intimated To A.O. For Advancement Of Loan Rs.53,95,000/- Given By Assessee To Pooja Agarwal, While Concern A.O. Has Accepted Said Loan In Her Hands After Detailed Examination. Hence Initiation Of 2

disallowing claim of 80C Rs.10,000/- in spite of evidence available at (APB-20-21). The assessee has also taken additional ground, which reads as under: Additional Ground No. 1 B Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law by making addition on some other grounds, while not making any addition in the assessment order on the primary issue which

MUKESH RUSTOGI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The End Of Year & Tax Has Been Paid By The Recipient. Hence The Disallowance Addition So Made & Confirmed By The Cit (A) Is Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts. Hence The Same May Kindly Be Deleted In Full.

disallowance so made and partly confirmed by the CIT (A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts. Hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 4. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C & 234D as consequential in nature. The appellant

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR mainly prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has invalidly dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

234D of the Act. The interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 3 AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS (P) LTD VS ACIT, KOTA 2.1 It is noted that the ld. AR of the assessee vide letter dated 20-5-2023 has prayed for additional ground being ground no. 4.1 and 4.2 reads

GALAXY IMPEX,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the disallowance made

disallowance made 28 M/s Galaxy Impex Vs. C.I.T.(A), Jaipur by the Assessing officer and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is deleted. The ground taken by the assessee is thus allowed. 12. Regarding Ground No.3 which is against levy of interest under Section 233B and 234D

SHRI SUNDER LAL ADVANI,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

disallowing the CNG Kit & fitting Expense amounting to Rs. 23,500/- and not allowing depreciation thereon by treating it as capital expenditure while brushing aside assessee’s reasonable explanations, submissions and evidences adduced and the learned CIT (Appeals), Kota also erred in confirming the expense amount while allowing the depreciation thereon. 6. That the ld. Assessing Officer also erred

JAGDISH PRASAD DHAKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of license fees and vendor fees to the income of the appellant on this count is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the addition. 4. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals-1), Jaipur has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition amounting

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 2.1 The Ground No. 1 of the assessee is general in nature which

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2017-18 and 18-\n19.\n2.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-\nITA No. 1114/JPR/2025 AY 2017-18 :\n\"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and\nCIT (A) erred in making ad-hoc disallowance

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2017-18 and 18- 19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- Govindam Brj Projects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. ITA NO. 1114/JPR/2025 AY 2017-18 : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and CIT (A) erred

HARBANS LAL SETHI,JAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

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

disallowance so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, kindly be deleted in full. 4. The AO & ld. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234B & 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing

REGHUVEER SINGH TANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing of interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary, to the provision of law and acts, kindly be deleted in full. 6. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter

SCHOLAR'S EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,602-A, TRIMURTY DAVE APARTMENT, JAI SINGH HIGHWAY MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

Bench: The Cit(A), The Power Exercised By Him U/S 263 For Disallowing The Donation Paid To Other Society Would Not Fall In The Ambit Of Section 263. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Given By Ld. Cit That Once Exemption U/S 11 Is Withdrawn, Not Disallowing The Scholar’S Education Trust Of India Vs. Cit(E)

section 263. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding given by Ld. CIT that once exemption u/s 11 is withdrawn, not disallowing the Scholar’S Education Trust of India vs. CIT(E) donation of Rs. 1,83,60,000/- in computing the total income has made the assessment order passed by AO as erroneous & prejudicial

RAJIV GANDHI VIDHYA PITH SHIKSHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION W(1), JAIPUR

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO (Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur. 2 Rajiv Gandhi Vidhya Pith Shiksha vs. ITO 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. 1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 143(3) dated 19.11.2018 are bad in law and on facts of the case

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

Section 22, “Annual Letting value” which was available in this case, hence was rightly declared. The impugned disallowance kindly be deleted in full.” 9.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the findings recorded by the authorities below and justified the additions made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to uphold the addition/disallowance

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

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

section 250 of the I.T. Act,\n1961, for the assessment year 2010-11.\n2.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n\"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. A.O. has erred in\nlaw as well as on facts in Issuing notice u/s 148 to an entity which

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance made in the quantum proceedings actually represents the concealment on the part of the assessee as envisaged in section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, and whether it is a fit case to impose the penalty by invoking the said provisions. Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Eilly Lilly & Company reported in 312 ITR 225 has held