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)

x) of the Act. 4.6 According, the ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed.” Ground No. 3 on issue no. 3 5.7 In view of the above discussion and deliberations, it becomes abundantly clear that the reliance of the AO on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Totagar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (Supra

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)

x) of the Act. 4.6 According, the ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed.” Ground No. 3 on issue no. 3 5.7 In view of the above discussion and deliberations, it becomes abundantly clear that the reliance of the AO on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Totagar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (Supra

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)

x) of the Act. 4.6 According, the ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed.” Ground No. 3 on issue no. 3 5.7 In view of the above discussion and deliberations, it becomes abundantly clear that the reliance of the AO on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Totagar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (Supra

ANNU AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. PR.CIT, UDIAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.Cit, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, Ipia 324005, Rajasthan, India. Pan No.: Aagca 5903 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

56(2)(viib) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.” The same was duly replied vide letter dated ‘Nil’ and dated 12.11.2018 (PB 14-19), on all the queries raised. The assesee provided complete name and PAN No of all the three shareholders. To prove their genuineness, the assesee also submitted copies of ITR acknowledgements (PB 29-40) and the confirmations

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

X containing section 61 to 63 contain the powers to levy certain charges including levy of conversion charges annual levy on vacant land etc. This power thus clearly empowers the JDA to have control and management of local fund. Section 58 of JDA Act provides that accounts of JDA shall be subject to audit by Local Fund Audit in accordance

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

X containing section 61 to 63 contain the powers to levy certain charges including levy of conversion charges annual levy on vacant land etc. This power thus clearly empowers the JDA to have control and management of local fund. Section 58 of JDA Act provides that accounts of JDA shall be subject to audit by Local Fund Audit in accordance

SHRI KESHORAIPATAN SAHKARI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,KOTA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

x Thus, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the Co-operative Bank is considered to a cooperative society for the purpose of section 80P(2)(d). Accordingly, in view of the decisions as cited (supra), we do not find any error or illegality in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of the allowing

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

x 5,80,25,377/ 331,64,63,555). The\ndisallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) is worked out to Rs. 5,80,253\n(being 1% of average investment of Rs. 5,80,25,377). Thus, total\ndisallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D is worked out to\nRs.23,31,312/-.\nIn the reply dated 22.2.2023 filed during present

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

RAJASTHAN TRANSMAT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 7(2),, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MEETHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

disallowance of PF Expenses of Rs.2,24,977/- is bad in law and facts. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration electronically declaring total income of Rs.11,62,190/- on 20-09-2012. The assessee is engaged

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Income Tax Act. This amount comes to Rs.17,298/- and the AO failed to add this sum of Rs.17,298/- to the total income of the assessee. Thus the ld. PCIT observed that in view of the above facts the order

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

56(2) (x) i.e. deeming provisions, case of assessee did not fall in category of under reporting of income - Held, yes - Whether further since in penalty notice revenue had failed to specify limb "under-reporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which penalty proceedings had been initiated, mere reference to word "misreporting" by revenue in assessment order, for imposition of penalty

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

56(2) (x) i.e. deeming provisions, case of assessee did not fall in category of under reporting of income - Held, yes - Whether further since in penalty notice revenue had failed to specify limb "under-reporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which penalty proceedings had been initiated, mere reference to word "misreporting" by revenue in assessment order, for imposition of penalty

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

x) of clause (24) of section 2 which is chargeable to income-tax under\nthe head \"Income from other sources\", deductions, so far as may be, in\naccordance with the provisions of clause (va) of sub-section (1)\nof section 36; (ii) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii)\nand (iii) of sub-section

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

56,689.00 1,78,92,739.00 PB-I [46- PB-I [58-73] 57] 21.03.2016 17.12.2018 4 2013-2014 20,48,030.00 8,14,33,841.00 8,14,33,841.00 6,17,64,673.00 2,52,62,800.00 2

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

x) of the Act. However, the assessee has itself disallowed only Rs 42,14,588/- in its computation. Thus the remaining amount Rs 2,59,71,570/- should have been disallowed by the AO. (ii) It is seen that in clause 34(a) of the audit report form 3CD the auditors have reported that the assessee has made total amount

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

56,330/- earned in UK as part of his total income offered for tax in India. Against the income earned in UK, assessee paid tax of Rs. 2,32,870/- un UK. Resultantly, while filing the return of income, assessee took credit of the tax paid in UK of Rs. 2,32,870/-, in accordance with section 90/91