ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80C has been claimed in accordance with\nlaw. The rejection of the claim solely on the ground that it was made in the return\nfiled under Section 153C is arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Act.\nSection 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer to\ntreat any unexplained expenditure incurred by an assessee

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80C has been claimed in accordance with\nlaw. The rejection of the claim solely on the ground that it was made in the return\nfiled under Section 153C is arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Act.\nSection 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer to\ntreat any unexplained expenditure incurred by an assessee

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

RAM NIWAS VERMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowances of Rs.7,96,530/- as per Section 50C of the Act and Rs.43,000/- as to claim deduction u/s 80C

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

80C has been claimed in accordance with law. The rejection of the claim solely on the ground that it was made in the return filed under Section 153C is arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Act. Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer to treat any unexplained expenditure incurred

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

80C has been claimed in accordance with law. The rejection of the claim solely on the ground that it was made in the return filed under Section 153C is arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Act. Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer to treat any unexplained expenditure incurred

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

80C has been claimed in accordance with law. The rejection of the claim solely on the ground that it was made in the return filed under Section 153C is arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Act. Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer to treat any unexplained expenditure incurred

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80C has been claimed in accordance with\nlaw. The rejection of the claim solely on the ground that it was made in the return\nfiled under Section 153C is arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Act.\nSection 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer to\ntreat any unexplained expenditure incurred by an Assessee

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80C has been claimed in accordance with\nlaw. The rejection of the claim solely on the ground that it was made in the return\nfiled under Section 153C is arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Act.\nSection 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer to\ntreat any unexplained expenditure incurred by an Assessee

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

CHAMELI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

26. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is set aside in the manner indicated above, while modifying the first mentioned addition of Rs

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

Section 69A of the Act made an addition of Rs. 19,00,000/-, due to unexplained investment by purchasing a flat situated at Jaipur, during the financial year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer also disallowed a sum of Rs. 60,000/-, u/s 80C

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 37 that the expression "for the purpose of business" includes expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial expediency, and it is immaterial if a third party also benefits thereby.” 6.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of PunjabStainless Steel Inds. Vs. CIT 324 ITR 396, has further elaborated stating that: “The commercial expediency would include suchpurpose

MAYA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAIPUR

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

disallowed the\nclaim of taxation u/s 115BAC and calculated tax on the basis of old tax regime.In any\nevent, it is not a mandatory requirement for filing of Form No.10IE but directory in\nnature. The Form No.10IE was very much available with the CPC and the CPC ought to\nhave considered the same allowing the benefit of New Tax RegimeThe