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

CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SHRI SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL, L/H SMT. SANTOSH AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 153B(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 9,43,99,690/-. However, the AO has framed the assessment at the total income of Rs. 12,09,86,280/- by making the additions as under :- Return Income Rs. 9,43,99,690/- Add: Addition of Income from House property

GENUS INNOVATION LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 43B which provides that the claim to be allowed only on the payment and not on accrual basis. Though the said disallowance by the AO has been upheld by this Tribunal, however, it is clear from the decision of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings that the Tribunal has followed the decision of Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in case

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GURU PRAGYA INFRA (P) LTD., JAIPUR

690 being 100 percent of the profit in respect of a project. The deduction was claimed by the assessee on the ground that each dwelling unit/flat constructed in the project was less than 1500 sq. ft. per unit. There was a survey action under section 133A on February 8, 2007 which covered the project sites as well. It was found

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

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

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

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

G.D. MINERALS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, disallowance of supervision charges of Rs

690/- made by these two HUFs. These two HUFs are specified persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. A show cause notice was issued by the AO to the assessee as to why excess commission payment should not be disallowed u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that there was no fixed percentage

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

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

ACIT, ALWAR vs. KALAS BIOTECH LTD., ALWAR

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

690/- against commission paid expenses. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the details of the commission paid. The assessee was also asked to furnish the name and address, amount and PAN of the parties to whom commission was paid during the year under consideration. After availing various opportunities and reminders the assessee finally filed its reply and submitted that

PRATAP RAJASTHAN SPECIAL STEELS,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 144 of the Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment determining the total income of Rs. 6,67,06,680/-of the assessee was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, it came to notice of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has sold certain factory land and building

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