TANUJ JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-7(2),JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

3) r.w.s 147 dt.\n05.02.2016. The impugned assessment order thus, having been passed\nabsolutely without jurisdiction is void-ab-initio being a nullity in absence\nof specific sanction of law. The ld. AO having acted contrary to the\nprovisions of law, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set\naside.\n2. The ld. CIT(A) erred

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. OM SHIV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(1), JAIPUR

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

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

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of I.T. Act. 2. That order of CIT (A) was served on 9.2.2020 and due to poor medical condition of appellant and looking to severe spread of COVID-19 the appeal could not be submitted within stipulated time of 60 days which expired on 9.4.2020 and this period falls in Lockdown period. Thus after removal

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

249(4)(b). However, the fact of filing of return of income and payment of tax was placed on record. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please 15 SDC Construction, Jaipur. be granted by quashing the entire order passed being against the principles of natural

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) being contrary to provisions of law and facts may be kindly deleted in full. 7. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the charging interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability

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)

3 of the paper book] wherein there was not specified allegation as to under which limb they intend to levy the penalty. He also supported the case law on the argument that was advanced before us. 8. The ld DR on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

249 as against claim of Rs.6,24,99,589 in AY 2017-18. Around 42% of\nsalary claim was found genuine and reasonable in AY 2017-18 and remaining 58%\nwas disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs\n4,57,76,644 is not for the purpose of activities of the trust

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

disallowance and deleting the said addition of Rs.63,95,407. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of making addition of Rs. 4,24,14,300 u/s 69. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and against

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3 The Ld. TPO and Hon'ble DRP has erred on facts and in law in proposing an \nadjustment of amount of Rs.136,31,75,249/- to the income of the appellant on \naccount of alleged difference in Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international \ntransaction of sale and purchase

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

disallowance of Rs. 13,07,007/- was deleted. b) The ld CIT(A) rejected the books of account by invoking section 145(3) of I.Tax Act by holding that assessee failed to furnish credible evidence in support of the source of cash deposited during the demonetization, hence the books of account of assessee are not reliable. (Page 38 of order

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

disallowance of Rs.1,38,95,995/- u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act (and the total reassessed income of Rs.\n5,97,80,77,790/-). However, this was followed by a notice u/s 263 with\nreference to the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 of the\nAct dated 26.03.2015 on the ground that a further amount of sales

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance was purely made on surmises and assumption. No adverse material was brought on record. It is worth mentioning that the submissions of the assessee trust were not controverted and no defect in the same was pointed out. In view of the above, addition made by ld. AO is illegal, devoid of merits and, therefore, department’s ground of appeal

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

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 in appeal prescribed

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

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 in appeal prescribed