DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

section 145(3) of I.T. Act. Further, the fact remains that the assessee itself has disallowed Rs. 4,81,614/- u/s 40(a)(ia) in the return

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

4. The combined reading of these two provisions make it clear that if there is any breach of requirements of Section 194C(3), the question of applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) arises. The exclusion provided in Sub-Section(3) of Section 194C from the liability to deduct tax at source under sub- section(2) would be complete, the moment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

3) read with 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

3) read with 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

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

disallowance under section 40A(3) has been rightly deleted by the ld CIT(A). The ground no. 2 of revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 29. Regarding ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of addition on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs 1,18,34,723 under Section 69C, briefly the facts of the case

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 1,27,04,176/- u/s 80-IBA of the act as the assesseehas failed to file the return of income within due date specified in subsection (1) of Section 139 for Assessment Year 2021-22 (Due date 15-03.2022) for claiming the deduction under Chapter-VI of ITA as per the provisions of Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

4) as how the provisions of section 13(3) are applicable. In fact while making the addition of Rs. 60,60,000/- on account of advance for purchase of land of Rs. 5,05,00,000/- to Perennial Real Estate Pvt Ltd the relevant 23 ACIT vs. Global Institute of Technology provisions of section 13(3) have not been cited

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

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 42,00,000/- U/s 40A(3) of the Act.” 3 ITA No. 250/JP/2019 & 2 Ors. M/s Skyways Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT Grounds of ITA No. 251/JP/2019 A.Y. 2015-16. “ 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 42,00,000/- U/s 40A(3) of the Act.” 3 ITA No. 250/JP/2019 & 2 Ors. M/s Skyways Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT Grounds of ITA No. 251/JP/2019 A.Y. 2015-16. “ 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 42,00,000/- U/s 40A(3) of the Act.” 3 ITA No. 250/JP/2019 & 2 Ors. M/s Skyways Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT Grounds of ITA No. 251/JP/2019 A.Y. 2015-16. “ 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition

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.”

3) lay down that penalty shall be levied under the section with reference to section 274. In other words the provisions of section shall apply in 9 Shri Suresh Chand Mittal, Jaipur. levying penalty under this section. Section 274 speaks that “ No order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

disallowed, contribution to Jaipur National University which has not been held to be application of income in view of violation of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) of the Act, and addition to fixed Assets which have not been allowed as application of income. Taking into consideration all these issues in addition to systematic generation of surplus

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

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance can be made under section 40A(3) – [Section 145, Read with section 40A(3), of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Method of accountings – estimation of income] [Assessment year 2005-06] [In favour of assessee). Ld. CIT(A) has filed to appreciate the above proposition of law and not even stated that how can the further addition on account

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance can be made under section 40A(3) – [Section 145, Read with section 40A(3), of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Method of accountings – estimation of income] [Assessment year 2005-06] [In favour of assessee). Ld. CIT(A) has filed to appreciate the above proposition of law and not even stated that how can the further addition on account

GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

4. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the Assessing Officer has clearly made out a case of violation of provisions of Section 13(1) and 13(3) of the Act and consequently the assessee is not eligible for exemption