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

2)(ii) is worked out to Rs.\n5,80,253 (being 1% of average investment of Rs. 5,80,25,377).\nHowever, neither the company has offered any such\ndisallowance suo moto nor the FAO has made any disallowance\nu/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Rules.\n2.2 As per note 25 to balance sheet, total interest expenses

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

RESERVE BANK COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

disallowed exemption claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) and 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.Also, he relies on the latest judgement of Apex Court in the case of “Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer”, [2023] 154 taxmann.com 305 (SC). 7.1 Further the Ld. DR argued that interest earned on FDR is income from investment

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance vide his order dated 05.12.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before us. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted his written submission as under :- “ The assessee, during the year had sold 1013 equity shares of the company, and had received share premium

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return as per section 143(1)(a)(iv). 2 SHRI BHANU PRAKASH BANSAL VS ITO,WARD 2(3), KOTA (ii) the said amount has been paid before due date of filing of return and thus cannot be added to income

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

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

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

disallowance represent concealment of income and thus imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. From the above facts it is abundantly clear that the AO did not specify as to under which limb of sec. 271(1)(c) the assessee is required to explain his case. In the notice issued u/s 274 read with sec. 271(1)(c), penalty proceedings

PALAS GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SIKAR vs. ITO, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance of the full amount without\nadjusting it against the GTI constitutes an incorrect application of Section 80P\nread with Section 80A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. The appellant prays for leave to add, to amend, to delete, or modify the all\nor any grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

253(5), if there is sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, Hon'ble ITAT may condone such delay. In the above legal and factual background it is submitted that preparation for national level events and attending such national level events of Digambar Jains was sufficient cause for not filing appeal within the stipulated time by Digambar Jain Mandir

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

2,00,00,000 | Nil | Nil\n| Development of Stones\n| (CDOS)\n| Prior period expenses | 36,73,140 | Nil | Nil\n| CSR expenses | 6,41,42,000 | 6,41,42,000 | 1,41,42,000\n| Deduction u/s 80IA | 15,33,95,189 | Nil | Nil\n| Disallowance

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

253, parliament has power to make any law for whole or any part of India for implementing any treaty, agreement and convention with any other country or countries. 2.15 Attention is drawn towards the decision of Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemical Ltd. [2017] 55 ITR (TRIB) 1 [Hyd.], rendered by the Special Bench of Hon'ble ITAT. • In the said case

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

253(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation Act in filing of appeal Hon'ble Sir(s), The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of Appeal for the following reason: 1. That the Id. PCIT (Central), Jaipur passed his order on 17.03.2021 which was served upon

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, 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)

253 ITR 593 (Supra).Reading of the proviso to Section 142 is very clear that the legislature has clearlycontemplated that in a case, where the whole or part of the relevant income is not exempted under Section 11 by virtue of violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income

GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

section 253(2) of the I.T. Act is issued separately. Appeal to be filed accordingly. Dated: 26-04-2024 Place: Jaipur (Anil Kumar Bhardwaj) Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption), Jaipur 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that the AO had disallowed

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hon'ble Sirs, Most respectfully submitted that the income tax assessment of the Trust for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was completed under Section 147 r.ws 144. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Jaipur, which was disposed of as per the details

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hon'ble Sirs, Most respectfully submitted that the income tax assessment of the Trust for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was completed under Section 147 r.ws 144. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Jaipur, which was disposed of as per the details

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 41/JP/2021 by the assessee. It was submitted that the due date of filing of the present appeal was 16/05/2021, however, due to 'Covid-19' pandemic and lockdown in the state of Rajasthan K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT since 17/04/2021

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 41/JP/2021 by the assessee. It was submitted that the due date of filing of the present appeal was 16/05/2021, however, due to 'Covid-19' pandemic and lockdown in the state of Rajasthan K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT since 17/04/2021

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

253(5) of the IT Act, 1961 Sir, The assessee company has received an order passed by Ld CIT(A)/ NFAC dated 31.07.2023 for A.Y 2012-13 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said order was uploaded online on e-filing portal of the assessee company. Accordingly, assessee company was required to file an appeal before