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

6 being general does not require\nany finding. Ground no 3 is merged with Ground no. 2 thereby leaving\nGround no 2 & 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

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

6 being general does not require\nany finding. Ground no 3 is merged with Ground no. 2 thereby leaving\nGround no 2 & 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

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

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 dated 28.01.2025) “In this ground the appellant asserts that the professional fees were legitimate expenses for land development services. However, the following points rebut this claim: 1. The services rendered were not clearly defined or corroborated with tangible evidences, despite opportunities given by the concerned AO. 2. Notices under Section 133(6) to the recipients were returned undelivered, further

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)

disallowance u.s. 14A of Income Tax Act,1961 should be made. This fact can be easily verifiable from the Balance Sheet available before ld FAO. Ld PCIT has not specifically pointed out any credible defects in that. The ld. AO satisfied himself about the genuineness of the 27 Career Point Limited, Kota. explanation of assessee. When the legislature has empowered

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

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

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

250 of making further inquiry, or directing the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him, which can be made use of in appeals needing further enquiry or gathering of additional facts or evidence. 78.2 This amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2001." 4. In the light of the above statutory embargo

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

250 of making further inquiry, or directing the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him, which can be made use of in appeals needing further enquiry or gathering of additional facts or evidence. 78.2 This amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2001." 4. In the light of the above statutory embargo

GUNMALA JAIN,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1262/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears :2019-20 Gunmala Jain, बनाम 28 Abhi Lash Nikunj, Kalyan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2) Colony, Ajmer Road Kekri, Ajmer स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.: ABRPJ 4764E Ajmer अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assesseeby :Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Thr.V.C.) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary (Addl. CIT) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/1

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), confirming the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 2 Gunmala Jain 1. The ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty u/sec. 270A at Rs.33,280/- (200%) is bad in law. Penalty levied on suo motto disallowance

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)

6 Sh. Murli Dhar Upadhyay, jaipur. For better understanding we are reproducing the relevant portion of section 143(3) of the act :- “On the day specified in the notice issued under sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the Assessing Officer may require

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)

250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds raised by the assessee as well as revenue are as under :- 1. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law and facts in referring the matter with TPO by invoking section 92CA of I.T. Act, 1961 and the ld. CIT (A) also erred in not considering

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)

250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds raised by the assessee as well as revenue are as under :- 1. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law and facts in referring the matter with TPO by invoking section 92CA of I.T. Act, 1961 and the ld. CIT (A) also erred in not considering

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Act. If the assessee is otherwise entitled to deduction under section 80IB(10), but due to its ignorance or for some other reason could not claim the same in the return of income, but has raised its claim before the Appellate Authority, then the Appellate Authority should have looked into the same. The assessee cannot be burdened

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 (6) of the act and states that the CIT (A) shall pass the order\nbased on points of determination accompanying the reasons thereon. Thus, the\nCIT (A) has no power to dismiss appeal of assessee without deciding the merits\nof the case.\nIn the instant case, despite of submitting the detailed submissions, the Ld CIT (A)\nhad not considered

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The said order of the ld. CIT (A), NFAC arises against the order 16.03.2021 passed under section 2 Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur. 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ITO National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54F and considering the same u/s 54 of the IT Act even when in the original grounds of appeal the assess didn’t mentioned the change in section from section 54F to 54.’ On the above ground, the following is submitted: 1. It is submitted that the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) through