SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

disallowance in the amount of Rs. 16,52,000 /-, found as unexplained money of the appellant. In this condition the addition made by AO factually and legally correct is upheld and the plea of the appellant on this issue is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances the additions made resulting in completion

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed under sections 68 or 690. In the present case, the appellant's argument that sales were accepted and GST ITC was allowed

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)

690/-. This case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 10.07.2017 which was duly served upon the assessee online and as well as through speed post. In compliance to the notice, the AR of the assessee company had furnished copy of ITR, Audit Report, Form

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

690/-. The assessment under section 143(3) of the act was completed on 01.02.2016. d) For assessment year 2015-16 return of income was filed on 29.09.2015 declaring Income at INR 6,90,50,060/-. No scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act. e) For assessment year 2016-17 return of income was filed on 16.10.2016 declaring Income

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

690/-. The assessment under section 143(3) of the act was completed on 01.02.2016. d) For assessment year 2015-16 return of income was filed on 29.09.2015 declaring Income at INR 6,90,50,060/-. No scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act. e) For assessment year 2016-17 return of income was filed on 16.10.2016 declaring Income

OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 or on general principle. (3) CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 101 DTR 377 (Raj) Once the amount was advanced by the creditors by account payee cheque from their respective bank accounts and the creditors were being assessed to income tax, the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction stood proved. Addition u/s 68 not sustainable

M/S. CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, the levy of penalty on such addition is hereby deleted

690/- and disallowance out of expenses of Rs.15,76,981/- was deleted while deciding the quantum appeal. Therefore the question of penalty u/s 271(I)(c) does not survive on above addition. The remaining addition of Rs.1,10,882/- out of various. expenses. The A/R of the appellant submitted that the disallowance is on estimate basis addition. Thus the penalty

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

690/- have been understated by Rs.33,39,666/-. 17 APM Industries Ltd vs. DCIT 4. Disallowance u/s 14A on investments yielding exempt income has not been considered, a sum of Rs. 1,50,03,512/- required to be disallowed u/s 14A as per the working of Learned PCIT. 5. Mismatch of figures reported in form No. 3CD and those

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowed a sum of Rs. 73, claimed as interest on TDS, by observing in the assessment order that the same was not permissible as per provisions of Section 40A(ii) of the Act. 8. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had claimed interest expenses of Rs. 29,690

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowed a sum of Rs. 73, claimed as interest on TDS, by observing in the assessment order that the same was not permissible as per provisions of Section 40A(ii) of the Act. 8. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had claimed interest expenses of Rs. 29,690

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowed a sum of Rs. 73, claimed as interest on TDS, by observing in the assessment order that the same was not permissible as per provisions of Section 40A(ii) of the Act. 8. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had claimed interest expenses of Rs. 29,690

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowed a sum of Rs. 73, claimed as interest on TDS, by observing in the assessment order that the same was not permissible as per provisions of Section 40A(ii) of the Act. 8. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had claimed interest expenses of Rs. 29,690

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

690/-. 3.1 During assessment proceeding, the ld. AO noted that the assessee has shown sundry creditors of Rs. 4,76,48,248/- against the turnover of Rs. 2,87,60,719/- implying that the sundry creditors are more than the turnover, in any business the waiting time for payment cannot be much long for sundry creditors. From the above

INCOME TAX OFFICEER, WARD-2(2), KOTA, RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. HITKARI VIDYALAYA SHAKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI LIMITED, BHATAPARA, KOTA

disallowed the benefit of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the interest\nearned by the assessee applicant from Cooperative Banks, i.e., A.P. Mahesh\nCooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Kota Nagrik\nSahkari Bank Ltd. and also from scheduled commercial banks.\n2.1. The CIT(A) vide its order dated 01.09.2023 has (i) allowed relief

SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

690/-. After a detailed deliberation between the assessee and the AO, the case of the assessee was finally assessed at Rs. 12,09,86,280/- [Figures of additions amounting to Rs. 2,65,86,591/- as per para 11 of the original assessment order, as provided vide page 26 of the PB (Internal page no. 15)]. The assessee being aggrieved

DIVYANIDHI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the income earned on account of transfer of the land held as investment in the books of accounts of the assessee company has been offered under the head 'Income from capital gains' and there is no dispute on it. Apart from the above income, there is no other income from

M/S HANUMAN TUBE WELL CO.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 40(b) in relation to remuberation to partners. 3. That the AO has no power to reopen the completed assessments merely for a change of opinion:- Where the primary facts necessary for assessment, are fully and truly disclosed, that ITO will not be entitled to commence proceedings for reassessment merely on change of opinion -CIT vs. Dinesh Chandra

M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

disallowing the income tax debited to Profit & Loss account is Rs. 1,21,231/-. Accordingly, assessee filed return under section 44AD declaring total income of Rs. 1,21,231/- which is more than the deemed profit of Rs. 1,18,790/- under section 44AD of the Act. The AO CPC processed the return under section