RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

house property on April 26, 1991 The Assessing Officer did not accept this explanation and taxed this amount, ie difference of Rs. 1,40,000 as short-term capital gain. No appeal was preferred Therefore, that addition had become final. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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

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

234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 2.1 Apropos Ground of appeals (supra), it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

house property? No. The case laws cited by assessee are not relevant as in the case of assessee nexus between borrowed funds and investment as clearly established. The payments were directly made from overdraft account only and also admitted by assessee. Considering the above, disallowance of interest of Rs.20,45,751/- is confirmed. This Ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the ground no

234D and withdrawal of interest u/s 244A of the Act, no arguments have been advanced by the ld. AR during the course of hearing and the levy and withdrawal of interest being consequential in nature, the said ground taken by the assessee is dismissed. M/s Allen Career Institute Vs. JCIT, Kota 4. Now coming to ground No. 2 where

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property (loss H.P. income, adjusted again Salary income Rs. (-) 5,78,838/- 3. Income from other sources Rs. 21,990/- Rs. 61,46,078/- Total income of assessee Rs. 61,46,078/- Less: Deduction under chapter VIA Rs. 2,43,584/- Net Taxable salary income Rs. 59,24,484/- Rounded off Rs. 59,24,480/- Loss from LTCG

GOVERDHAN SIGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability for charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the year

PARSHAVNATH ASSOCIATES, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

234D. Interest u/s 244A is also withdrawn, as per law. A copy of this order along with ITNS 150 which is part of this order is served upon assessee.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the Assessee filed an appeal to CIT (A) on 31.05.2021. However, the CIT (A) passed the order dated 27.10.2024 without appreciating the arguments

PARSHWANATH BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

234D. Interest u/s 244A is also withdrawn, as per law. A copy of this order along with ITNS 150 which is part of this order is served upon assessee.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the Assessee filed an appeal to CIT (A) on 31.05.2021. However, the CIT (A) passed the order dated 27.10.2024 without appreciating the arguments

HIRALAL VIJAWAT , BHAWANIMANDI,BHAWANIMANDI vs. ACIT / DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA, KOTA

234D. Interest u/s 244A is also withdrawn, as per law. A\r\ncopy of this order along with ITNS 150 which is part of this order is served upon\r\nassessee. A notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act and challan for payment of tax, if\r\npayable, is hereby issued. Penalty u/s 271AAC of the Income

MUSTAFA KATTHAWALA,KOTA vs. DCIT ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

234D (Rs.4,254/-) of the Act and as also in withdrawing\ninterest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of\ncharging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so\ncharged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts,\nkindly be deleted in full.\n7. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend

AKSHAT LOYALKA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-C-(101)(1), JAIPUR

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

234D of the Act. The levy interest being\ncharged, is contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.\n6. The appellant prays your honor indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of\nthe grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”\nWe find that as per order sheet placed

ASHOK PARNAMI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

234D is bad in law. 4. Consequential initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law. 5. The appellant craves to add/alter grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 2. The assessee filed the return declaring total income of Rs. 6,08,60,400/- on 16.02.2017 which was processed

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee

SATBIR YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

house. The denial of deduction so claimed and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A), is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be allowed. 3. The Id. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D

BALWANT YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

house. The denial of deduction so claimed and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A), is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be allowed. 3. The Id. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D

SMT. SAROJ DHAKA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

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

House, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ACSPG 2298 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 08/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear: 2009-10. cuke Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/o MahendraGargieya& Associates Ward 6(3), Advocates & Tax Consultants, Jaipur. 537-539, 5th Floor, Mahima’s Trinity Near Jyoti Rao Phule

SHRI SURESH KUMAR CHAWLA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(3), JAIPUR

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

House, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ACSPG 2298 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 08/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear: 2009-10. cuke Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/o MahendraGargieya& Associates Ward 6(3), Advocates & Tax Consultants, Jaipur. 537-539, 5th Floor, Mahima’s Trinity Near Jyoti Rao Phule

SHRI BHAGWATI PRASAD SHARMA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, DAUSA

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

House, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ACSPG 2298 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 08/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear: 2009-10. cuke Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/o MahendraGargieya& Associates Ward 6(3), Advocates & Tax Consultants, Jaipur. 537-539, 5th Floor, Mahima’s Trinity Near Jyoti Rao Phule