WAHID KHAN,BHIWADI vs. ITO WARD-1(2), ALWAR /DCIT CPC BENGALURU, ALWAR/CPC BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

237/- to the Government Account within the due date prescribed under the said Acts. Rejecting the explanation of the assessee that such amount has been deposited before the due date of filing of the return, the AO held that the above amounts totaling to Rs. 14,88,536/- is forming part of the income of the assessee under section

RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

237 ITR 570 (SC) The Supreme Court held that where the question of law was debatable, penalty cannot be imposed. In the light of the above arguments and case laws, it is respectfully submitted that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is not justified and should be deleted. The assessee has not concealed any income or furnished inaccurate

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

disallowance of Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO Rs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and the same be deleted. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue that the case was reopened

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)/(la) of the Income Tax Act." 4. Sec. 195 not applicable: 4.1 From the Crux of the various judicial pronouncements and the guidance provided (cited later in this w/s), it is clear that the only test of applying Sec.195 is whether the subjected payment is a sum chargeable under the provisions of this

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 14A of the Act, the case of the department is that the assessee was found to have made investments of Rs. 5, 73, 99, 90/- in equities, but, the assessee, in its Profit and Loss Account, debited expenses by way of interest, to the tune of Rs. 17, 63, 22,237/-. The Assessing Officer, while dealing with the issue

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)

disallow Rs. 5,00,000/- out of total expenses of Rs. 11,86,847/- under this head and added in the total income of the assessee. Based on the above observation ld. AO completed the assessment proceeding as per provision of section 143(3) of the Act on 09.12.2018. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. AO, assessee preferred

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowance of\nRs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and\nthe same be deleted.\n7.\nThe Id. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written\nsubmission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue\nthat the case was reopened by ITO, Ward 4(1), Chandigarh

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Disallowance of long-term capital gains exemption of Rs.40,15,061.29 by\ntreating the sale of listed equity shares as a bogus transaction; and\nb. Addition of Rs.2,05,753 (being 5% of Rs.40,15,061.29) towards alleged\nundisclosed expenditure under Section 69C on account of commission\npurportedly paid to obtain such capital gains.\nAggrieved by the assessment order

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)

disallowance u/s. 43 B of the Act. The P&L Account and other supporting evidences were available on the record of the CIT(A) The very invoking of s.43B of the Act must have been deleted here by itself." 2.2. To this effect, the ld. AR took support of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of NTPC

GOLDEN INDIA FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD,, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 98/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Golden India Foundation AA-13, Jay Ambey Nagar, Opp. Old Jaipur Hospital, Tonk Road, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ITO Exemption- Ward Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTG 3675 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri C.L. Yadav, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Da

disallowed this repayment without calling for details and audited accounts of relevant earlier years. It is also noted that the Ld.CIT(A) also ignored these facts and on the very same reason and finding propounded by the AO, confirmed the addition. It is also noted that the unsecured loan were obtained from trustees in order to construct the building

RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRINGI,GUMANPURA vs. PR.CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

237 ITR 0570 (SC): “As pointed out by the Tribunal, in the corresponding clause in the Bill which was introduced in Parliament, the word "shall" had been used but during the course of consideration of the Bill and on the recommendation of the Select Committee, the said word was substituted by the word "may". This clearly indicates that the intention

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowed the deduction of\ninterest payment claimed by the appellant\nIn this ground of appeal the appellant has contended that a perusal of Page-3 of\nassessment order reveals that addition with respect to unsecured loans taken by\nthe assessee has been prompted on the basis of a search and seizure action\ncarried out at \"Banka Group of Kolkata

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

section 127 of the Act, with DCIT, Central Circle-1 Jaipur by an order\nof the PCIT.\n6. The assessee is private limited company engaged in the\nTransportation of “Four Wheeler vehicles” throughout the country from the\npoint of their manufacturer to the directed destinations.\n6.1 The assessee filed regular return u/s 139 of the Act on 31.10.2019\ndeclaring total

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance was based on substantial non-compliance by the assessee,\nwho avoided personal attendance in response to summons issued under Section\n131, thereby raising legitimate doubts regarding the claim.\n3. Key Points and Errors in Ld. CIT(A)'s Observations\n3.1 Documentation Submitted by the Appellant\ni.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) observed that the appellant provided necessary documents,\nincluding ledger

INDIAN MEDICAL TRUST,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, JAIPUR

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

section 11(1)(a) of Income tax\nAct for the surplus of Rs.3,49,10,237/- which was within the limit of 15% of gross receipts\nprescribed under the relevant provisions.\nGROUND No. (2) Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining disallowance

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] which were passed on 20.12.2017 & 24.11.2018. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 176 & 177/JP/2025 for A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17 are interrelated, identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each appeal, therefore, these appeals were heard