ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowed said claim on ground that interest paid under section\n201(1A) would be penal in nature - Whether since tax was deducted by\nassessee on behalf of third party, interest charged on failure to remit\nsame within due date to government would be compensatory in nature\nand interest paid on delayed payment of TDS under section 201(1A)\nwas

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

disallowance represent concealment\nof income and thus imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n\n2. From the above facts it is abundantly clear that the AO did not specify as to under which\nlimb of sec. 271(1)(c) the assessee is required to explain his case. In the notice issued u/s\n274 read with sec. 271(1)(c), penalty

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

Disallowance u/s 1,33,200/- Addition confirmed by 40A(3) ITAT Total 38,28,001/- 5 M/s Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO In view of the items at S.No. 1 & 3 above being set-aside back to the file of the AO, the ITO, Ward 3(1) passed an order u/s 143(3)/250/set-aside

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing the exemption, penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside." The situation in the present case is still better as no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its Return. 12. The Tribunal, as well as, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the High Court have correctly reached this conclusion

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

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

Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. 11. Further we observed from the assessment order that the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for examination of cash deposited during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. POONIA WINES, JAIPUR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

disallowed against which appeal under section 246A of Income tax Act was preferred. Vide order dated 09.02.2023, Id. CIT(A), NFAC

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections 246A and 80P, of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Commissioner (Appeals) - Form of appeal and limitation (Condonation of delay) - Assessing Officer disallowed

OM INDUSTRIES,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JIAPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

246A, 248 and 249 of I.T. Act; neither the Assessee can stop the further working of that machinery as a matter of right by withdrawing the appeal, or by not pressing the appeal, or by non-prosecution of the appeal; nor the first appellate authority, CIT(A) in this case, can halt this machinery by ignoring either the procedure

JR INDUSTRIES,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

246A, 248 and 249 of I.T. Act; neither the Assessee can stop the further working of that machinery as a matter of right by withdrawing the appeal, or by not pressing the appeal, or by non-prosecution of the appeal; nor the first appellate authority, CIT(A) in this case, can halt this machinery by ignoring either the procedure

VIKAS OIL PRODUCTS,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

246A, 248 and 249 of I.T. Act; neither the Assessee can stop the further working of that machinery as a matter of right by withdrawing the appeal, or by not pressing the appeal, or by non-prosecution of the appeal; nor the first appellate authority, CIT(A) in this case, can halt this machinery by ignoring either the procedure

S R AUTOMOBILES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

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

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

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee has concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being initiated separately on this issue. 6 S.R. Automobiles, Jaipur 4.2 On perusal of ITS details, it has been noticed that the assessee

MUSTAFA KATTHAWALA,KOTA vs. DCIT ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

disallowances made in the order u/s\n147 r.w.s 144 dated 31.03.2023 are bad in law and on facts of the\ncase, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the\nsame kindly be deleted.\n2. The very action taken u/s 147 is bad in law without jurisdiction and\nbeing void ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Rs. 1,42,170/- due to late deposition of contribution to PF and ESI in violation of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Thus, Respondent No.1 made the total addition of Rs. 2,03,34,571/- to the returned income of Rs. 48,63,850/-, thereby assessing the income of the Appellant

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses on account of personal element/unverifiable expenses. The A.O. simultaneously initiated penalty 3 SHRI PARAS MAL JAIN VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. The A.O. thereafter took penalty proceedings initiated by him u/s 271AAB by issuing fresh show cause notice(s) to which assessee filed his explanation. The explanation filed by assessee

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

disallowances and additions. The penalty proceeding\nu/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 has been initiated on the ground that assessee\nduring the course of search in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) offered a sum of\nRs.49,50,000/- on account of investment in construction of house and\nRs.20,28,903/- on account of excess value of stock found

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of expenses\non account of personal element/unverifiable expenses. The A.O. simultaneously\ninitiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. The assessee filed his\nexplanation to the said notice which was rejected by A.O. and vide impugned\npenalty order dated levied a penalty of Rs.1,00,11,335/- on assessee firm. The\npresent appeal is against said penalty imposed

ACIT, NCRB BUILDING JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA REAL ESTATE PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs. 36,15,030/- of expenses claimed by the assessee company is being made to assess the total income of the assessee company at Rs. 19,95,00,000/-.” Accordingly, the A.O. made an addition of Rs. 36,15,030/- in the declared income of Rs. 19,58,84,970/- and assessed the assessee company