SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

4. It was submitted that the AO disallowed the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act stating that the Appellant

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,30,65,828/- which includes addition of Rs. 42,379/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,23,519/- on account of disallowance

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,52,42,549/- which includes addition of Rs. 43,639/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,42,490/- on account of disallowance

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

4: Challenges the disallowance of ₹1,95,27,206/- under section 43B\nHowever, the disallowance has been made only because

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

4: Challenges the disallowance of ₹1,95,27,206/- under section 43B\nHowever, the disallowance has been made only because

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

4: Challenges the disallowance of ₹1,95,27,206/- under section 43B\nHowever, the disallowance has been made only because

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.”

4) and thus deduction u/s 54B claimed by the assessee was fully allowable. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the genuine reasons which delayed the investment in the purchase of new asset and thereby erred in disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54B. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the agricultural land sold

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

4) of the Act disclosed an income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income on 27th December, 2014 declaring income of Rs. 1,78,85,690/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 1.50 crores. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153(1)(b) on 29th February, 2016 determining

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

4) of the Act disclosed an income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income on 27th December, 2014 declaring income of Rs. 1,78,85,690/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 1.50 crores. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153(1)(b) on 29th February, 2016 determining

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act specifying the exact clause of Sec. 271AAB under which penalty was to be levied.” 3. The assessee is an individual and partner in the firms M/s Sethia Real Estates and M/s Manglam Vardhman Developers LLP. The assessee is also Director in M/s Richwell Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. These firms and companies

SHRI KAMAL SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act specifying the exact clause of Sec. 271AAB under which penalty was to be levied.” 3. The assessee is an individual and partner in the firms M/s Sethia Real Estates and M/s Manglam Vardhman Developers LLP. The assessee is also Director in M/s Richwell Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. These firms and companies

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowance of Rs. 9400/- of deduction claimed under section 80C of the Act. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB by issuing show cause notice dated 23rd March, 2016 when the assessment order was passed and further a notice dated 12.08.2016 was also issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act. In reply

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

4 CFCL Overseas Ltd. - Preference 31092.35 9% 365 27,98,31,150 Shares 2895.10 9% 345 2,48,42,336 931.88 9% 389 70,02,212 4477.20 9% 305 3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

4 CFCL Overseas Ltd. - Preference 31092.35 9% 365 27,98,31,150 Shares 2895.10 9% 345 2,48,42,336 931.88 9% 389 70,02,212 4477.20 9% 305 3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

4 CFCL Overseas Ltd. - Preference 31092.35 9% 365 27,98,31,150 Shares 2895.10 9% 345 2,48,42,336 931.88 9% 389 70,02,212 4477.20 9% 305 3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

4) (5) As per section 37 of the Act, any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4) has admitted and disclosed an amount of Rs. 7,22,00,000/- as undisclosed income. The assessee filed his return of income on 31.01.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 12,61,51,540/- which included undisclosed income of Rs. 7,22,00,000/-. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153B

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

4) of the act on11.11.2019during the search and seizure action under section 132 of the income tax act, 1961 in case of M/s Skyway infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Hi-Tech Engineers, M/s RPS infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon Realty Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon infra projects Ltd and Shri Deepak Jain on 10.11.2019, Lateron Mr Deepak Jain retracted from

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

4 that wherein it has been stated that similar disallowance of prior period expenses was made in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2014- 15 which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and as the Revenue has not filed any appeal against such disallowances Revenue should remain consistent on their stand as they have not challenged the decision