TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

section 143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

section 143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed

RAJESH MOTORS (CARS) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the above mentioned assessee's are dismissed

section 143(1), assumes critical\nimportance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in\nmind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will\nessentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of\nthe Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where\na return is processed

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)

32,25,630/- from shares. The assessee explained that the shares have been held as stock in trade and therefore no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. The AO, however, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made disallowance of Rs.71,75,575/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2). The same was sustained by CIT(A) and ITAT holding that section

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)

section 143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1). Upon co joint reading of both the provision of the Act we note that both the section deal with the section 139 and it does not speak any sub- section on that section 139. Thus, relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT-1 Vs. Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel 84 taxmann.com 32 (Gujarat) wherein

TAB INDIA GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

section 143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowing the\nexemption of Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowing the\nexemption of Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowing the\nexemption of Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowing the\nexemption of Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowing the\nexemption of Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowing the\nexemption of Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowing the\nexemption of Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowing the\nexemption of Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowing the\nexemption of Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowing the\nexemption of Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ANIMESH AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowing the\nexemption of Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground