M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

260/- is unjustified and uncalled for. In view of above the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) be directed to be deleted.” 8. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was also placed on the following evidence / records : S. No. Particulars Pg No. Filed before AO/ CIT(A) 1. Copy of submission dt. 31.01.2021 filed before

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

260/- is unjustified and uncalled for. In view of above the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) be directed to be deleted.” 8. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was also placed on the following evidence / records : S. No. Particulars Pg No. Filed before AO/ CIT(A) 1. Copy of submission dt. 31.01.2021 filed before

OM PRAKASH RASORIA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

260/- as detailed in assessment order although this will be allowed as deduction u/s 54B as upheld in following cases. (i) CIT vs Gurnam Singh, 327 ITR 278 (2008), P&H (ii) ITO vs Saraswati Ramanathan, 300 ITR 410 (2007), ITAT Del. (iii) Tribunal Judgement of Bench ‘1’ (2010) – copy of judgement has been submitted earlier with

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

disallowing the advertisement expenditure claimed by the assessee - There is nothing on record to suggest that the order of AO is not sustainable in law – the order of the CIT is set aside – Decided in favour of assessee. 22 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 29. Further it is settled law that initiation of 263 proceedings should

PALIWAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

section 40A(3). In the present proceedings, it was stated that M/s. Balaji Jewelers and Vipul Bag House are manufacturer of purses and bags on small basis and are in the nature of cottage industries. However, no evidence to that effect was produced by the Authorized Representative, further it was also not stated as to how they are covered under

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

260/- on account of non-deduction of TDS for payment made to non-resident having no PE. The disallowance so made & confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), is contrary to the provisions of law and facts. 3. 23,54,230/- : The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming charging

VINOD LODHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT ITA No.1020/JP/16 Shri Vinod Lodha vs. The ACIT, circle-6,Jaipur Rules. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs. 19,16,148/- disallowed by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) holding that adequate interest free funds were available with the assessee which have been utilized for the purposes

SMT. SUMAN CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

260, is reproduced below: "Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every tribunal possesses." 3.4 The principle

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

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Disallowance u/s 43B 15,42,573/- 10,89,538/- NIL (No appeal for balance) 5. Donation 51,000/- No Appeal - 6. ESI Demand 1,09,115/- 1,09,115/- NIL 7. ESI Penalty 1,17,135/- 1,17,135/- NIL 8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Disallowance u/s 43B 15,42,573/- 10,89,538/- NIL (No appeal for balance) 5. Donation 51,000/- No Appeal - 6. ESI Demand 1,09,115/- 1,09,115/- NIL 7. ESI Penalty 1,17,135/- 1,17,135/- NIL 8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in view of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 195 by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. X 20 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur 30. In the present case, undisputed facts are that the commission has been paid to various non-resident entities in respect

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallow 15% of total contract receipt of Rs. 19,15,000/-that comes to Rs. 2,87,250/-. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 11 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 2,87,250/- was made and added to the total income of the assessee. Thus, total income of the assessee was computed as under : Add: Unexplained cash deposit

S. P. C. INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, , 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)

section 36(1)(va). Hence, as per discussion above and in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), the action of the AO in this regard is, therefore, confirmed and the ground of appeal No. 1 & 2 are not allowed.’’ 2.3 During

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 37(1) but failed to produce relevant evidence to justify said expenditure, Assessing Officer was justified in making adhoc disallowance of same. 5.1.15 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sandeep Marwah [2019] 101 taxmann.com 123 (Delhi)/[2019] 260

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of the long term capital gain claim is not relevant in the wake of findings of fact" In the case of Shamim Imtiaz Hingora, the ITAT, Pune has held that though the AO did not find any mistake in the documentation furnished by the assessee, there is need for finding of fact on (i) the nature of the shares

RAM NIWAS VERMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

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

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

260/-. 3. The appellant was requested repeatedly to file reply. During the course of appellate proceedings vide notice dated 17/02/2021, 27/04/2022, 06/02/2023 & 03/03/2023. However no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not comply with the notices and hence made no submission 4 RAM NIWAS VERMA VS ITO,WARD 2(4), JAIPUR