NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of Rs. 11,25,800/- invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. It was submitted that assessment in this case was originally completed U/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.05.2009 and therefore, at the time of search, the assessment was not pending and therefore, in the absence

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of Rs. 11,25,800/- invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. It was submitted that assessment in this case was originally completed U/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.05.2009 and therefore, at the time of search, the assessment was not pending and therefore, in the absence

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of Rs. 11,25,800/- invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. It was submitted that assessment in this case was originally completed U/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.05.2009 and therefore, at the time of search, the assessment was not pending and therefore, in the absence

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

245D(4) of Act on 30.06.2017. For the year in appeal, as against nil taxable income, the income assessed by ld. AO was Rs.26,28,95,700/- for the reason that ld. AO did not allow depreciation of Rs.16,66,58,482, educational expenses of Rs.2,64,16,748/- incurred on practical training to the students of BJMC (Bachelor degree

M/S P. R. ROLLING MILLS P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

section 35(ii), disallowance made by AO in the year under consideration deserves to be deleted. (Vi) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. There is no dispute that at the time of making donation by the appellant to M/s SHG & PH, it was approved by the CBDT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance of indexation cost. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur is justified in treating the shops sold as capital asset instead of stock in trade. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance of indexation cost. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur is justified in treating the shops sold as capital asset instead of stock in trade. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance of indexation cost. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur is justified in treating the shops sold as capital asset instead of stock in trade. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur

M/S ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, KOTA

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

section 245D(3) dated 30.04.2019, it is pointed out that the scholarship payment is only a contingent and unascertained liability which has been disallowed in A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013–14 and confirmed by CIT(A) and therefore, the same should be disallowed for AY 2014-15 to 2017-18 also. It is contended before us that against the addition

SH. ABHAY KUMAR GODHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 546/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Abhay Kumar Godha 750, Achariyon Ka Rasta, Kishan Pole Bazar Jaipur - 303 003 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPG 4721K अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR स

4) dated 29.09.2016 by making addition of Rs. 62,55,140/- and thereby assessed the total Income at Rs. 7.5 crore. Thereafter, in pursuance to rectification application the Settlement Commission passed order u/s 245D(6B) dated 17.02.2017 assessing the total income at Rs. 7.5 crore. Along with the order the Settlement Commission had prepared an inflow-outflow statement