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

80D, 80DD and 80G etc.). However, the given notice u/s 133(6) in no\nmanner shows (or alleges) that some wrong claim was made by the assessee\nwith a view to conceal and/or to furnish inaccurate particulars. The notice simply\nrequired the assessee to provide certain information related to/ in support of the\ndeductions claimed. It is not the case

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

80D, 80DD and 80G etc.). However, the given notice u/s 133(6) in no\nmanner shows (or alleges) that some wrong claim was made by the assessee\nwith a view to conceal and/or to furnish inaccurate particulars. The notice simply\nrequired the assessee to provide certain information related to/ in support of the\ndeductions claimed. It is not the case

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

80D, 80DD and 80G etc.). However, the given notice u/s 133(6) in no\nmanner shows (or alleges) that some wrong claim was made by the assessee\nwith a view to conceal and/or to furnish inaccurate particulars. The notice simply\nrequired the assessee to provide certain information related to/ in support of the\ndeductions claimed. It is not the case

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

section 36(1)(iii) because in\nsection 37 also the expression used is \"for the purpose of\nbusiness\". It has been consistently held in decisions relating to\nsection 37 that the expression \"for the purpose of business\"\nincludes expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial\nexpediency, and it is immaterial if a third party also benefits\nthereby.\"\n6.2 The Hon'ble Delhi

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

80D and 80ITA of Rs. 1,02,520/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. After considering the fact of the case and details filed by the assessee, the returned income as declared by the assessee accepted in an order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 28.06.2016. Later on vide order dated 03.07.2018, the Assessing Officer rectified

TARUNA MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 7(2), JPR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

disallowed the claim of taxation u/s 115BAC stating that assessee could not submit the Form 10-IE within time allowed. Your honour, the substantive conditions to allow the claim of this new regime is given in sub-section 2, where assessee is not entitled to get various deductions if he opts for taxation u/s 115BAC instead of normal rates

RENU KHUNTETA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 115JC(1) of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the income-tax act, where the regular income tax payable for a previous year by a person, other than a company, is less than the alternate minimum tax (AMT) payable for such previous year, the adjusted total income shall be deemed to be the total income of that person