INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

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.”

2) The amount of the capital gain which is not utilised by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,31,254/- made by the Assessing Officer representing delay in remittance of employees contribution towards ESI.” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 30.10.2018 declaring total

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)

2,65,36,577 as adhoc disallowance of expense under section 37(1) of the Act on the basis that the Appellant was not able to furnish plausible explanation or details or project wise ledger account. It is submitted that the Appellant had furnished ledger accounts of all the expenses (PB 67-68) running into 170 pages incurred

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)

2,65,36,577 as adhoc disallowance of expense under section 37(1) of the Act on the basis that the Appellant was not able to furnish plausible explanation or details or project wise ledger account. It is submitted that the Appellant had furnished ledger accounts of all the expenses (PB 67-68) running into 170 pages incurred

M/S SILVER AND ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of Rs. 12,384/- on account of delay in deposition of ESI & PF. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB were initiated by issuance of notice on 23.12.2016. Subsequently, penalty was imposed u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act at the rate of 10% amounting to Rs. 2,65,05,090/- vide order dated 24.4.2017. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

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)

254/- as the same has been paid in compliance with the provisions of The Income Tax Act, 1961 and ESI Act, 1948. 2. The ADIT, CPC has grossly erred in law in disallowing the amount of Rs 6,98,230/- under section

LALITA KUMARI,ANTA DISTRICT BARAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2 of the assessment order in the second last line below the table at para number 1.) d. The AO also mentioned a fact, which though not made basis of addition, as understood by the assessee, but highlighted in the assessment order, which was that the assessee had made FDR’s of Rs. 1,45,59,170/- (more than

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

2(A)(xxv) (PB 185) for mandatory provision of at least Rs.3 crores per annum or Rs. 5 per tonne of coal consumed (whichever is higher) towards the same purposes. It is also observed that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide its Office Memorandum dated: 01.05.2018 (PB 189-192) at para 3 observed that section

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

2(A)(xxv) (PB 185) for mandatory provision of at least Rs.3 crores per annum or Rs. 5 per tonne of coal consumed (whichever is higher) towards the same purposes. It is also observed that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide its Office Memorandum dated: 01.05.2018 (PB 189-192) at para 3 observed that section

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

2(A)(xxv) (PB 185) for mandatory provision of at least Rs.3 crores per annum or Rs. 5 per tonne of coal consumed (whichever is higher) towards the same purposes. It is also observed that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide its Office Memorandum dated: 01.05.2018 (PB 189-192) at para 3 observed that section

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

2(A)(xxv) (PB 185) for mandatory provision of at least Rs.3 crores per annum or Rs. 5 per tonne of coal consumed (whichever is higher) towards the same purposes. It is also observed that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide its Office Memorandum dated: 01.05.2018 (PB 189-192) at para 3 observed that section

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

2(A)(xxv) (PB 185) for mandatory provision of at least Rs.3 crores per annum or Rs. 5 per tonne of coal consumed (whichever is higher) towards the same purposes. It is also observed that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide its Office Memorandum dated: 01.05.2018 (PB 189-192) at para 3 observed that section

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

2(A)(xxv) (PB 185) for mandatory provision of at least Rs.3 crores per annum or Rs. 5 per tonne of coal consumed (whichever is higher) towards the same purposes. It is also observed that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide its Office Memorandum dated: 01.05.2018 (PB 189-192) at para 3 observed that section

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

2(A)(xxv) (PB 185) for mandatory provision of at least Rs.3 crores per annum or Rs. 5 per tonne of coal consumed (whichever is higher) towards the same purposes. It is also observed that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide its Office Memorandum dated: 01.05.2018 (PB 189-192) at para 3 observed that section