AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

4 which are related to the one issue of disallowance u/s.\n43B of the Act.\nRecord reveals that the Id. AO CPC has disallowed the GST at Rs.\n1,30,43,384/- and Rs.64,83,823/- being the amount of service tax.\nSo far as regards the amount disallowable u/s.43B of the Act in the\nyear under consideration the bench

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

4 which are related to the one issue of disallowance u/s.\n43B of the Act.\nRecord reveals that the Id. AO CPC has disallowed the GST at Rs.\n1,30,43,384/- and Rs.64,83,823/- being the amount of service tax.\nSo far as regards the amount disallowable u/s.43B of the Act in the\nyear under consideration the bench

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

4 which are related to the one issue of disallowance u/s.\n43B of the Act.\nRecord reveals that the Id. AO CPC has disallowed the GST at Rs.\n1,30,43,384/- and Rs.64,83,823/- being the amount of service tax.\nSo far as regards the amount disallowable u/s.43B of the Act in the\nyear under consideration the bench

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance. The penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act were initiated vide show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee filed his reply to show cause notice vide letter dated 30.12.2016. The AO was not impressed with the reply filed by the assessee and levied the penalty @ 10% of the surrendered income amounting to Rs. 61,95,020/- vide order dated

SHRI KAMAL SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance. The penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act were initiated vide show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee filed his reply to show cause notice vide letter dated 30.12.2016. The AO was not impressed with the reply filed by the assessee and levied the penalty @ 10% of the surrendered income amounting to Rs. 59,44,219/- vide order dated

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)

4) of rule 46A and provisions of section 250, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting confirmation produced by Appellant straightaway and he should have directed Assessing Officer to consider said confirmation letters and find out identity, creditworthiness, etc., of persons who had advanced money to appellant from their respective bank accounts. J. Because the Appellant has furnished

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)

4) of the act on11.11.2019during the search and seizure action under section 132 of the income tax act, 1961 in case of M/s Skyway infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Hi-Tech Engineers, M/s RPS infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon Realty Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon infra projects Ltd and Shri Deepak Jain on 10.11.2019, Lateron Mr Deepak Jain retracted from

ACIT, CC-1, JAIPUR vs. DR. SHIV GAUTAM, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 85/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2017-18 A.C.I.T., Cuke Dr. Shiv Gautam, Central Circle-1, Vs. 1, Gokul, Jacob Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abopg 4893 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 28/05/2021 For The A.Y. 2017-18 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.17.30 Lakhs Inspite Of The Fact That The Assessee Has Made Surrender Of This Amount In His Statement Recorded As Per Law & Had Attributed It To Hitherto Undisclosed Receipts. 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,77,34,000/-

250(4) of the Act only give a discretion to CIT(A) for further enquiry if the facts so warrant but do not compel him to make further enquiry/ provide opportunity of cross examination. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned order

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

250(4) of the Act to substantiate his contention. Copies of the affidavits of 28 buyers as submitted by the assessee has also been provided to the AO. However, AO has reiterated same facts as mentioned in the assessment order. It is also a fact that on the day of search flats were not sold and only booking amounts were

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

250 Taxman 16 (SC) CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 99 DTR 131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

250 Taxman 16 (SC) CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 99 DTR 131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

250 Taxman 16 (SC) CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 99 DTR 131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation

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)

250 of the Act on 24.03.2025 for Assessment Year 2022-23. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arise as against the penalty order dated 26.09.2024 passed under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2), Ajmer. 2 Urmila Rajendra Mundra vs. ITO 2. In this appeal

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

4. The learned AO has erred in allowing deduction of Rs 94,39,201/- under section disallowing deduction of Rs 94,39,201/- 54F of Income Tax Act in most arbitrary manner and claimed by the assessee under section on flimsy grounds. 54F of Income Tax Act in most arbitrary manner and on flimsy grounds. 5.The learned AO has erred

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)

250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non- 2 S.R. Automobiles, Jaipur prosecution, as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.) 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order without ensuring proper service

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

disallowable expense. TheFinance Act 2022 has amended section 40 by inserting Explanation 3 with effectfrom 1-4-2005 to provide that the term ‘tax’ shall include and shall be deemed tohave always included any surcharge or cess. In light of the amendment effectedretrospectively, it is held that Education cess is not an allowable Expense and theadditional ground raised