AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

disallowing the rae of profit declared by\nthe assessee. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in\nmaking addition u/s 2(22)(e) even when addition was already made in the original\nassessment proceedings on account of less profit rate declared by the assessee.\n4.7.5 The copy of reasons of reopening were provided

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

disallowed by the AO is confirmed. Ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5. Now the assessee is in further appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee submitted that in this case the sale consideration was received at Rs. 7,00,000/- cash in each case on 09.02.2013, 11.02.2013 & 12.02.2013. Thus a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- was received

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

249-274/Vol-2. Appeal filed by the revenue before Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur was dismissed. Copy of the order of Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur is at PB page 275-277/ Vol-2. (iii) AY 2017-18 The assessment of immediate preceding year AY 2017-18 was completed u/s 143(3) wherein no addition u/s 14A was made. The copy

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) (b) of the Act is not commensurate with the experience of such ladies. 14. As per our considered view, to apply the provisions of section 145(3) of Income Tax Act, there must be finding of the Assessing Officer that books of account are not correct or incomplete or the assessee is not following the proper method of accounting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) (b) of the Act is not commensurate with the experience of such ladies. 14. As per our considered view, to apply the provisions of section 145(3) of Income Tax Act, there must be finding of the Assessing Officer that books of account are not correct or incomplete or the assessee is not following the proper method of accounting

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

249 Fund Provident 2 9,416 52,770 15-06-2018 62,186 16-06-2018 Fund 5 Nimbus Pipes Limited Provident 225 15-11-2018 468 30-01-2019 3 243 Fund Provident 15-12-2018 1.710 30-01-2019 4 890 820 Fund Provident 93 86 15-12-2018 179 20-03-2019 5 Fund Provident

SHRI KARAN RAWAT,NAINITAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

249 (Delhi- Trib) 4. It was further submitted that section 80-IC falls in Chapter VI-A-(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and provides for deduction of a percentage of profits and gains derived from the eligible business which is carried out through the undertaking/ enterprise situated in the specified states. An enterprise situated 2 Shri Karan Rawat

PADAM CHAND DHADDA HUF,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowing the indexed cost of expenses incurred on account of boundary wall and small two rooms with kitchen amounting to Rs. 1,249,969/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing.” 2. The appeal filed by the Assessee is barred by 28 days. Ld. Counsel

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

249 ITR 216 (SC) The principle of natural justice is so fundamental that failure to observe the principle of natural justice cannot be made good in appeal. Lack of opportunity before the A O cannot be rectified by the appellate authority by giving such opportunity. 3. CCE Vs ITC Ltd (1995) 2 SCC 38 (SC) Before an assessee is made

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

2,08,95,96,120 / 31)\n2.\n2012-2013\nRs. 7,07,76,643 (6,74,06,326*1.05)\n3.\n2013-2014\nRs. 7,43,15,475 (7,07,76,643*1.05)\n4.\n2014-2015\nRs. 7,80,31,249 (7,43,15,475*1.05)\n5.\n2015-2016\nRs. 8,19,32,811 (7,80,31,249*1.05)\n6.\n2016

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

disallowed to the assessee. ‘’2.2 Submission of Appellant:- The provision of Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is reproduced as under:- (d) in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year— (i) any funds of the trust

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

2,91,76,220/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing of expenses of long service award benefits and resettlement allowance. o8 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota Disallowance of expenses incurred exempt income u/s 14A of the Act Department has also challenged, deletion of addition of Rs. 4,357/- made