HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance vide his order dated 05.12.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before us. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted his written submission as under :- “ The assessee, during the year had sold 1013 equity shares of the company, and had received share premium

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

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

x) investment in immovable property. Explanation.—"Immovable property" does not include any machinery or plant (other than machinery or plant installed in a building for the convenient occupation of the building) even though attached to, or permanently fastened to, anything attached to the earth;] (xi) deposits with the Industrial Development Bank of India established under the Industrial Development Bank

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.”

disallowed by the AO is confirmed. Ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5. Now the assessee is in further appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee submitted that in this case the sale consideration was received at Rs. 7,00,000/- cash in each case on 09.02.2013, 11.02.2013 & 12.02.2013. Thus a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- was received

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 (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

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

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

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

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

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

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

x) of the Income Tax Act. Particular Amount Collected from Due date of Actual date of deposit employees (in Rs.) depositing PF 87,093 15.07.2016 19.07.2016 5 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT PF 1,01,548 15.01.2017 20.01.2017 ESI 11,261 21.09.2016 18.11.2016 ESI 11,742 21.10.2016 18.11.2016 ESI 20,037 21.01.2017 23.01.2017 Total 2,31,681/- Thus

LALIT KUMAR ARORA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CR-2, , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Bench: Furnishing The Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. When The Matter Was Taken To The Ld. Cit(A) The Said Disallowance Was Sustained.

x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years.” 15. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against disallowance of Rs. 56

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

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

X 20 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur 30. In the present case, undisputed facts are that the commission has been paid to various non-resident entities in respect of sales affected by the assessee outside of India, the services have been rendered outside of India and the payments have been made outside of India

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

x As held in the above order, the powers of CIT(A) are conterminous with the power of Assessing Officer. In other words, the CIT(A) has wide power while deciding the appeal. Hence, the argument of the appellant are not found to be acceptable. As per Clause(2) of Section 251 of the Act, it is provided that