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

73,140 | Nil | Nil\n| CSR expenses | 6,41,42,000 | 6,41,42,000 | 1,41,42,000\n| Deduction u/s 80IA | 15,33,95,189 | Nil | Nil\n| Disallowance u/s 14A | 71,75,575 | 71,75,575 | 71,75,575\n| Service Tax Receivable | 1,93,00,000 | 1,93,00,000 | Set aside\n| Excess provision

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation.\nThe assessee filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur which\nwas disposed off vide order 04-04-2018 by the Id. CIT(A). After giving the\neffect of the above order, the assessed income was reduced to\nRs.1,05,94,050/- which was as declared in the revised return of income\nfiled

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

73,870.00 51 purchase 27.03.2017 Local Lavis Silver Arts 17,99,670.00 52 purchase 25.03.2017 Local Varndavan Jewellers 18,08,279.44 53 purchase 25.03.2017 Local Varndavan Jewellers 7,72,803.16 54 purchase 17 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal 25.03.2017 Local Varndavan Jewellers 38,44,500.00 55 purchase 27.03.2017 Local Lavis Silver Arts 21,28,595.56 56 purchase 27.03.2017 Local

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 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43/[1992] 65 Taxman 420. The depreciation being notional expenditure will not fall under the expression 'actually applied' as held by the Apex Court in the case

ALSISAR HOTELS & RESORTS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. CIT APPEALS , CIRCLE-1 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

73,352/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Pvt. ltd. vs. DCIT 07.05.2020 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 79,644/- 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

SETH RB MOONDHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BANI PARK ,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

73- No. 2156/Del/2018Date of Order : 79 13/04/2018Related Assessment Year : 2014- 15Courts : All ITAT (6060) ITAT Delhi (1372) So your honour is requested kindly to allow the appeal PRAYER:- 1. Your honor is requested kindly to delete the disallowance of Rs. 43,272/- under section

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

73, 74 of that order is\nreproduced as under:-\nX\nX\nX\nX\nThe above logic and reasoning though given in context of education, clearly provide the\nlight on case of assesse, that if assesse would have been selling the products produced\nduring the garbage collection, same may be considered incidental, but is assesse is taking\ncontract and doing work

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)

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] on 15.01.2021. 2 Shree Cement Limited vs. ACIT 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

73,180/-on 30.10.2019. The case of the assessee has been processedu/s\n143(1) of the IT Act at total income of Rs.2,77,00,390/- disallowing the GST of\nRs.1,30,43,384/- and service tax of Rs.64,83,822/- as per provisions of section

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

73,180/-on 30.10.2019. The case of the assessee has been processedu/s\n143(1) of the IT Act at total income of Rs.2,77,00,390/- disallowing the GST of\nRs.1,30,43,384/- and service tax of Rs.64,83,822/- as per provisions of section

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

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

73,180/-on 30.10.2019. The case of the assessee has been processedu/s\n143(1) of the IT Act at total income of Rs.2,77,00,390/- disallowing the GST of\nRs.1,30,43,384/- and service tax of Rs.64,83,822/- as per provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowed purchase of Rs. 43,33,606/- being 25% of alleged purchases of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- found to be unverifiable by invoking provisions of section

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

73 to 81. In Para 81 (the concluding para) the Hon`ble SC has mentioned as under :- “81. This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to “pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assessees concerned.” Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section

DWARKA GEMS LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance if the overall sense gathered from the order is that a further\nprognosis is called for. It would be sufficient compliance with the law that there is a\nprima facie evidence for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income. Even after this section, the Assessing Officer has to satisfy the\nparticular limb of initiation

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

disallowance. Aggrieved thereby, assessee is in appeal. In the facts of the case, it is clear that asssessee was fully aware that the claims of deduction made were inadmissible because he has not deducted TDS on the payments. Despite that he took a chance because had the case not selected for scrutiny, he would have reduced tax liability. It cannot

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation.\nThe assessee filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur which\nwas disposed off vide order 04-04-2018 by the Id. CIT(A). After giving the\neffect of the above order, the assessed income was reduced to\nRs.1,05,94,050/- which was as declared in the revised return of income\nfiled

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

1) dated 21/03/2022 (correct date is 21/02/2022) (PB Page 96-105), wherein detail of transaction executed by assessee company through broker M/s SMC Global Securities Limited were provided. 8. Sir, one fails to understand that how detail of transaction which in fact executed by assessee can held as supporting evidence for allegation without any material based on which

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

disallowance and deleting the said addition of Rs.63,95,407. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of making addition of Rs. 4,24,14,300 u/s 69. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and against