VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

section 2(22)(e). The ld. AO stated that the explanation given by the assessee is found not acceptable, for the following incremental facts- 1. No documentary evidence of such meeting held on 04/08/2011 has been provided. 2. No minutes of the above said meeting are also filed to support the story. 3. It is highly unbelievable that the term

SHRI GOVIND SWAROOP GARG,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER

In the result, ground is allowed for statistical purposes

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, remaining advances to the tune of Rs 32.45 lacs will be considered for determining deemed dividend. The AO has determined the accumulated profits at Rs 28.35 lacs of M/s Raj Auto Wheels Private Limited which has not been disputed by the assessee. The lower of the two i.e, Rs 28.35 lacs

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SMT. VEENA GOAYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

22)(e) and thus are not applicable in the case of the assessee. 10. Detailed finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) are as per the material on record, accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order 8 ITA 75 & 76/JP/2020_ DCIT Vs. Smt. Veena Goyal & 1 Anr of the ld. CIT(A) for deleting

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

house property chargeable under section 22.\nExplanation. For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumer co-operative society\nmeans a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal\ncorporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or\ncantoriment\n10\nITA No. 213/JP/2025\nThe Bank of Rajasthan Employees Credit & Thirft Cooperative Society Limited

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has further contended that since the assessment was not pending as on date of search and there is no incriminating material found and seized disclosing any income on account of deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has further contended that since the assessment was not pending as on date of search and there is no incriminating material found and seized disclosing any income on account of deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has further contended that since the assessment was not pending as on date of search and there is no incriminating material found and seized disclosing any income on account of deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has further contended that since the assessment was not pending as on date of search and there is no incriminating material found and seized disclosing any income on account of deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has further contended that since the assessment was not pending as on date of search and there is no incriminating material found and seized disclosing any income on account of deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return

M/S. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ADD.CIT. RANGE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

houses, film stars and the entire activities are conducted in a commercial manner, then the income earned by the assessee from the said activities of conducting the IPL matches is only from activity of trade, commerce or business. Therefore, the first leg of proviso to section 2(15) is attracted in the case of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

houses, film stars and the entire activities are conducted in a commercial manner, then the income earned by the assessee from the said activities of conducting the IPL matches is only from activity of trade, commerce or business. Therefore, the first leg of proviso to section 2(15) is attracted in the case of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

houses, film stars and the entire activities are conducted in a commercial manner, then the income earned by the assessee from the said activities of conducting the IPL matches is only from activity of trade, commerce or business. Therefore, the first leg of proviso to section 2(15) is attracted in the case of the assessee

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

22 of Income Tax Act, 1961 the Income from House Property is: - “The Annual value of property consisting of any building or lands appurtenant thereon of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

22 of Income Tax Act, 1961 the Income from House Property is: - “The Annual value of property consisting of any building or lands appurtenant thereon of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

e) Sec. 33A : Cases in which the ITO or the Asstt. Commissioner thinks that an assessment should be revised, must be brought to the notice of the CIT. (f) Sec. 35 : Mistakes should be rectified as soon as they are discovered without waiting for an assessee to point them out. (g) Sec. 60(2) : Cases where relief can properly

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

property by the service provider under the direct control of the RCA. He observed that in the present case the service provider is paying to the RCA for using the premises as hotel. It is clear for the same that the motive of RCA is to maximize the profit. He observed that RCA is generating huge profit year after year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

property by the service provider under the direct control of the RCA. He observed that in the present case the service provider is paying to the RCA for using the premises as hotel. It is clear for the same that the motive of RCA is to maximize the profit. He observed that RCA is generating huge profit year after year

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

property by the service provider under the direct control of the RCA. He observed that in the present case the service provider is paying to the RCA for using the premises as hotel. It is clear for the same that the motive of RCA is to maximize the profit. He observed that RCA is generating huge profit year after year