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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D,\n80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs\n1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the\nhead \" Income from House Property\" at Rs 70,000/- thereby declaring net\ntaxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D,\n80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs\n1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the\nhead \" Income from House Property\" at Rs 70,000/- thereby declaring net\ntaxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D,\n80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs\n1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the\nhead \" Income from House Property\" at Rs 70,000/- thereby declaring net\ntaxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, business capital gains and other sources. Return of income for\nthe year under appeal was filed u/s 139(1) on 31.03.2012 declaring the total income at\nRs.2,29,200/- (APB 1-3). The assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act\nat the total income of Rs.1,48,63,860/-, wherein addition of Rs.1

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

property told assessee that he could not pay in lump sum on a single date and thus sales consideration was received in cash on 5 different dates (iii) assessee on account of medical infirmity of her husband travelled to Delhi to collect the sale proceeds on different dates and simultaneously made purchases for the wedding of daughter. Assessee also contended

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

House (Supra) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. (supra),Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld.” 4.2 Further assessee admittedly produced sales bills, cash book and all books of account which have not been rejected. The sales

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house and reasons behind it is very simple that mostly jewellers are not familiar with the computers and their equipment that is why such work is assigned to the accountant and accountant who do part time accounting usually carry their employers work from shop to his home and finish it in late hours so that he can engage in more

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Properties (P.) Ltd. [2019] reported in 111 taxmann.com 94 in regard to similar issue held as under— "11. We note that the books of account of the respondent were rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 145(3) of the Act. However, the Tribunal found in the impugned order that the invocation of section

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

260A(Set-Aside) r.w.s. 153A on 17.10.2018, Id. AO made addition of Rs. 1,95,137/- on substantive basis. A relevant part of assessment order dated 17.10.2018 are reproduced as under: "12. Moreover, it is mentioned here that the books of accounts are incomplete and incorrect and trading results declared by the assessee are not relied upon. Neither the cash

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

260A of the Act. The Court’s mandate, thus, is to consider whether or not a substantial question of law arises for consideration. 12.1 As noted above, the impugned order has not been passed on merits. 13. The Tribunal has applied the plain provisions of the 2019 Circular, based on which, it has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Property Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2023) 152 taxmann.com 256 (Kar H.C.)  Pr. CIT vs. Goodview Trading (P.) Ltd. (2017) 77 taxmann.com 204 (Delhi H.C.) 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The only issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is that 7 investors company made and investment in the share

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house) of the original contract to the third party. In the case of the assessee company it was merely SPV specially formed as conduit for distribution and execution of work awarded to participating companies. It is not a case where work was given to third party. M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 1.9. The assessee company was not in existence

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house) of the original contract to the third party. In the case of the assessee company it was merely SPV specially formed as conduit for distribution and execution of work awarded to participating companies. It is not a case where work was given to third party. M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 1.9. The assessee company was not in existence

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

260A has been recommended for AY 2015-16. On this issue, further appeal before the Hon'ble High Court is pending for the A.Y. 2014-15 to 2018-19. e) Allowability of Indexation benefit on transfer of Long Term Capital Asset This issue has not been taken into consideration in the assessment proceedings for past assessment years. Hence, no further

ASHA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(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 ARVIND KUMAR SENGWA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, AJMER

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