THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

disallowed the exemption on the ground\nthat the assessee has not filed its ROI u/s 139(1). The reason of not filing of\nthe same are that as the assessee is a Govt. Cooperative Society and the\naccounts could not prepared the timely, also from March 2020 to till return\nfilling there was Covid-19 Pandemic period it is also

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)

disallowed the amount of Rs.49,67,023/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) 4 TELECRATS INDIA

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)

disallowed the amount of Rs.49,67,023/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) 4 TELECRATS INDIA

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

67 CCH 0398 Rajkot Trib (2023)\r\n200 ITD 0014 (Rajkot-Trib) Asst. Year 2019-20 has held as under:-\r\n\"7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In\r\nthe instant facts, admittedly the assessee did not file return of income within the\r\ntime permissible under section 139(1

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)

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have been passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO is clearly barred by limitation. 6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of income on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

67,426/- resulting in surrendered of the same in the ITR. Hence, the above mentioned concealment of income leads to attract penal provisions by virtue of section 271 (1) (c). Further. the explanation put forth by the assessee in his defence has not been found satisfactory and in this way also the case of the assessee falls in the category

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

67,426/- resulting in surrendered of the same in the ITR. Hence, the above mentioned concealment of income leads to attract penal provisions by virtue of section 271 (1) (c). Further. the explanation put forth by the assessee in his defence has not been found satisfactory and in this way also the case of the assessee falls in the category

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have\nbeen passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO\nis clearly barred by limitation.\n\n6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of\nincome on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance

BRAHAM PARKASH YADAV,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 2 Braham Parkash Yadav 10,93,988/- and the ld. CIT(A) Faceless also erred in confirming the said addition.” 3. The assessee has also raised additional ground as under:- “1. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs. 10,93,988/- in view of the judgment of Chechmate Services Private

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

67,426/- resulting in\nsurrendered of the same in the ITR. Hence, the above mentioned concealment of\nincome leads to attract penal provisions by virtue of section 271 (1) (c). Further.\nthe explanation put forth by the assessee in his defence has not been found\nsatisfactory and in this way also the case of the assessee falls in the category

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowed in the year in which it was claimed, or could have been treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee under section 68 of the Act in relevant assessment years, but the same cannot be taxed under section 41(1) of the Act, in as much as if the liability itself is not genuine, the question

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

section 14A of the Act. The\nonly relevant factor is the investments in such assets which have\nresulted or would result in to earning of such income which would\nnot form part of total income. However, neither the assessee\noffered any such disallowance suomoto in the computation of\nincome nor the AO made any disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

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

section u/s 147/148 of 1.T. Act, 1961 & reopened the case. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in upholding the action of Ld. A.O. for reopening of Assessment. 2 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR 2. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred on Law and Facts in not accepting the order of Higher Authorities

RAGHAV IMPEX,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1),JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

67,819/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

VAIBHAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed for non-compliance of procedural requirement that is prescribed in the Rules. The said rule 128(9) provides that Form 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed under section 139(1

DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT-C-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

67,430/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 18.06.2020 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 21,15,855/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallow said payments under section 40A(3), assessee offered that its income might be computed by applying net profit rate of 8 per cent of gross receipts - Assessing Officer having accepted 8 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR assessee's offer, made addition in terms of section 44AD - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1

GANGAUR EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and order of Ld

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

67,50,000/- to Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. While computing the total income, the Company disallowed the CSR expenditure as it is not allowable as per explanation 2 to sub section(1