BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

392/-. He has further erred in confirming the disallowance by not following the direction/finding of Hon’ble ITAT on this issue for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making disallowance of Rs. 5, 42, 74,770/- under Explanation 2 to section

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

392/-. He has further erred in confirming the disallowance by not following the direction/finding of Hon’ble ITAT on this issue for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making disallowance of Rs. 5, 42, 74,770/- under Explanation 2 to section

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

392/-. He has further erred in confirming the disallowance by not following the direction/finding of Hon’ble ITAT on this issue for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making disallowance of Rs. 5, 42, 74,770/- under Explanation 2 to section

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

392/-. He has further erred in confirming the disallowance by not following the direction/finding of Hon’ble ITAT on this issue for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making disallowance of Rs. 5, 42, 74,770/- under Explanation 2 to section

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

392/-. He has further erred in confirming the disallowance by not following the direction/finding of Hon’ble ITAT on this issue for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making disallowance of Rs. 5, 42, 74,770/- under Explanation 2 to section

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

392/-. He has further erred in confirming the disallowance by not following the direction/finding of Hon’ble ITAT on this issue for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making disallowance of Rs. 5, 42, 74,770/- under Explanation 2 to section

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

392 ITR 74 (Kar.) has upheld the order of the ld. CIT (A) allowing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. vs. CCIT (supra) has discussed this issue in detail in para 28 to 37 as under

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

392 ITR 74 (Kar.) has upheld the order of the ld. CIT (A) allowing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. vs. CCIT (supra) has discussed this issue in detail in para 28 to 37 as under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

House (ITA No.613/2010). In the facts of above case, a cash of Rs. 24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that nexus of such deposit was not establish with any source of income. The assessee claimed that it was duly recorded in the books of account

MANISH KUMAR VIJAY,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

House Property -38,129 E. Gross Total Income (B+C-D) 4,66,819 F. Deduction u/s 80C 1,17,392 G. Deduction u/s 80TTA 3,113 H. Total Income [E-F-G] 3,46,314 5 Manish Kumar Vijay vs. ITO Manish Kumar Vijay vs. ITO I. Rounded off Rounded off 346,310 4. Thereafter, the return was processed

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

392/-. He has further erred in confirming\nthe disallowance by not following the direction/finding of Hon'ble ITAT\non this issue for A.Y. 2012-13.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the\norder of AO in making disallowance of Rs. 5, 42, 74,770/- under\nExplanation 2 to section

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to interfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority." The onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the interest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively only for the purpose of making investments which have

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively\nonly for the purpose of making investments which have

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively\nonly for the purpose of making investments which have

SMT. RAJNI GUTPA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

house property income and income from other sources. Assessee filed her original return of income u/s 139 of the Act, on 31.10.2017 for the AY 2017-18 vide Ack. No. 278562830311017 declaring a total income at Rs. 3,04,540/-. Assessee belongs to Gupta Group, Alwar on whose premises, a search and seizure u/s 132 of the Act was carried

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI SANDEEP CHHABRA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The grounds taken by the Revenue reads as under: “1 Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 68,40,468/- made on the basis of figures as per documents seized from

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

392 ITR 444 (Del) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2017] [TIOL-253-SC-IT] and the relevant observations are extracted as under: x x x x 6.3 It is plain from reading the impugned order that how the appellant was involved in reverse trading with the parties viz. Narayan Capital Services Private Limited and Padam Raj Agarwal

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

properties against which the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act situates in Punjab, transactions have also been held at Punjab and admittedly the assessee is also residing in Punjab, we are of the considered view that the Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar, had no jurisdiction to frame the subjected assessment, consequently the assessment