URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the AO is sustained and ground Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the CIT(E) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before the CIT (E), the assesee has reiterated that his submissions and which was not taken on record

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the AO is sustained and ground Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the CIT(E) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before the CIT (E), the assesee has reiterated that his submissions and which was not taken on record

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the AO is sustained and ground Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the CIT(E) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before the CIT (E), the assesee has reiterated that his submissions and which was not taken on record

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the AO is sustained and ground Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the CIT(E) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before the CIT (E), the assesee has reiterated that his submissions and which was not taken on record

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the AO is sustained and ground Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the CIT(E) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before the CIT (E), the assesee has reiterated that his submissions and which was not taken on record

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the AO is sustained and ground Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the CIT(E) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before the CIT (E), the assesee has reiterated that his submissions and which was not taken on record

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) and Rs. 429,539/- which was brought to tax in respect of interest on income tax refund. During the course of assessment proceedings, on perusal of Form No. 3CA, the Assessing Officer noticed that the statutory audit of the assessee was conducted on 16.07.2014 and the assessee has therefore failed to furnish

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

disallowed in assessment order." 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. Earlier, the present appeal of the assessee has also been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 02/12/2019 for want of prosecution. Against the order of the ITAT, the assessee has filed

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

271B was also imposed. A moot question arises as to what the ld. AR has done in the discharge of his professional duties, who was appointed to take care of the tax affairs before the AO. The ld. CIT(A) purportedly did not raise any question on this aspect. 4.3.3 Even if assuming for a moment, the A/R never advised

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of\npenalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year.\n(12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in\nwriting, by the Assessing Officer, 24[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of\npenalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year.\n(12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in\nwriting, by the Assessing Officer, 24[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

ASHUTOSH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance under section 68/69 of the IT Act 1961. (v.) Share derivative transactions amounting to Rs. 3,32,29,00,597.22/- was made by you for the year under consideration. Further, it was mandatory for audit u/s 44AB of the IT Act 1961, as the transactions in derivatives were more than the threshold limit. However, Assessing Officer not initiated penalty