PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or 15 Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd. (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS

SH. ASHOK SONI,27, MAHADEO DAGDI NAGAR, BEHIND ADARSH NAGAR, GALI NO.2, BEAWAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

92,041/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 10.12.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 10,12,628/- 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’s failure to pay the employee

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. The terms of section

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. The terms of section

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. The terms of section

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

disallow the claim of deduction u/s.\n10AA of the Act.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, alter and modify the or amend any\nground on or before the date of hearing.\n3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records are thatthe\nassessee company e-filed its return of income declaring total income of\nRs.7

MOTHERS EDUCATION HUB,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

92,73,550/- The AO held that education qualification of these persons are quite less as compared to the salary. The salary so paid is unreasonable and exceptionally excessive having regard to the fair market value of such services. The excessive salary was paid with the object of reducing the tax liability. Accordingly he disallowed 50% of the salary

RAJ KUMAR KANDOI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

disallowance made 7 RAJ KUMAR KANDOI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR by the learned AO was totally unjustified and illegal. The Bench refers the Section 57 as under:- Deductions from 'Income from Other Sources' [Section 57] – The income chargeable to tax under this head 'Income from Other Sources' is computed after making the following deductions: (i) In the case

RAVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Itr. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Of Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,995/- Being Double Addition Of Speculative Income.’’

92,800/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO made an addition of Rs.2,28,891/- towards belated payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under:- ‘’7.15 In view

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

section 40A (2) (b) of the Act so they are to be taken at arms length price as section 92BA (i) covers the same field as section 40A (2) (b). That in the case of Vipul Y Mehta Vs. ACIT (Ahmedabad) ITA No. 869/Ahd/2010, the CIT (A) relied upon the judgement of Omkarmal Gaurishankar Vs. I.T.O. , 92

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

section 40A (2) (b) of the Act so they are to be taken at arms length price as section 92BA (i) covers the same field as section 40A (2) (b). That in the case of Vipul Y Mehta Vs. ACIT (Ahmedabad) ITA No. 869/Ahd/2010, the CIT (A) relied upon the judgement of Omkarmal Gaurishankar Vs. I.T.O. , 92

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

section 40A (2) (b) of the Act so they are to be taken at arms length price as section 92BA (i) covers the same field as section 40A (2) (b). That in the case of Vipul Y Mehta Vs. ACIT (Ahmedabad) ITA No. 869/Ahd/2010, the CIT (A) relied upon the judgement of Omkarmal Gaurishankar Vs. I.T.O. , 92

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

section 40A (2) (b) of the Act so they are to be taken at arms length price as section 92BA (i) covers the same field as section 40A (2) (b). That in the case of Vipul Y Mehta Vs. ACIT (Ahmedabad) ITA No. 869/Ahd/2010, the CIT (A) relied upon the judgement of Omkarmal Gaurishankar Vs. I.T.O. , 92

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

section 40A (2) (b) of the Act so they are to be taken at arms length price as section 92BA (i) covers the same field as section 40A (2) (b). That in the case of Vipul Y Mehta Vs. ACIT (Ahmedabad) ITA No. 869/Ahd/2010, the CIT (A) relied upon the judgement of Omkarmal Gaurishankar Vs. I.T.O. , 92

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

92,401/- taken by the appellant during the financial year 2016-17 under consideration as un-explained by upholding invoking the provisions of section 68 and determining the tax demand under section 115BBE of the Act by the Ld. Assessing Officer without considering the submission made and documents and information regarding unsecured loan already available on record, without appreciating

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

disallowed\nAmount for which reason should have been recorded in the\nsatisfaction note\nAmount\nRs.8,00,000\nRs.8,000\nRs.7,92,000\nThus, it is clear that the learned AO went on to re-open the case, merely on the\nobservation and direction of the Audit Party, in a mechanical manner and without\nindependent application of his own mind, which

JEWELS EMPORIUM A LEGACY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT,CC-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

disallowance deleted by CIT(A) and no appeal by revenue / appeal of the revenue dismissed]. In AY 2006-07, GP rate shown 6 Jewels Emporium A Legacy, jaipur. by assessee was 34.82% and after considering the addition finally sustained by ITAT for Rs. 1,25,000/- the GP rate would come to 34.91%. In AY 2008-09, GP rate shown

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

92,787.00 The AO has disallowed the said amount U/s. 40(a) (i) on the ground that the assessee has not deducted the tax at source as required U/s. 195(1) of the Act. The AO has given much emphasis to explanation-II to Section