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)

properties. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Modi Xerox (supra) has considered this issue in paras 17 to 19 as under: ……. 9. Thus, once the transaction of payment of rent is not found to be bogus or ingenuine, then the disallowance of the expenditure under s. 40A(2)(b) is not warranted

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act and even the show cause\nnotice is silent about that.\nIn our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect\nprinciples to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly\nanalysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not\nthink that

RAM NIWAS MODI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are disposed off\nthereby allowing the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

House, Gumanpura,\nKota.\nस्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: AAATR8150J\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &\nShri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. JCIT\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 23/09/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 20/11/2025\nआदेश/ORDER\nPER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nThe present

AMIT COLONIZERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

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

2:- The assessee company has entered into a development agreement with Mr. Jitendra Kumar Yadav on 22.03.2012 for development of Plot No. E-97, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. During F.Y 2011-12 the assessee paid Rs. 11,00,000/- in cash. Since payments are above Rs. 20,000/- therefore, Section 40A(3) attracted on these payment and same

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

property and later sells it at profit, the gain made by the company will be\nassessable under the head “capital gains”. Similarly, if a company purchases rented house\nand gets rent, such rent will be assessable to tax under s. 22 as income from house\nproperty. Likewise, the company may have income from other sources. The company may\nalso

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

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

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

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

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

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

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

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

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

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

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

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

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

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

40A] to an employee engaged in such scientific research or on the purchase of materials used in such scientific research, the aggregate of the expenditure so laid out or expended within the three years immediately preceding the commencement of the business shall, to the extent it is certified by the prescribed authority to have been laid out or expended

M/S. OM SHIV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

2,00,000/- (b) Registration expense Rs. 433532 (c) Other expense Rs. 60630 It was further submitted that the assessee company had received Rs. 10,00,000/- on 08.02.2013 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 02.04.2013 as the old outstanding debtors recovered from Rajhans Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Copies of some of the Pattas issued by Rajhans Cooperative Housing Society

M/S. SWASTIK OIL INDUSTRIES,TONK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, , JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 145(1) and if the provisions was not invoked then the estimate of profit would not possible in the eyes of law. Further, the AO made trading addition considering the yield ratio of similar business carrying out same job at same station in the same conditions. Here I am of view that if the same businesses with same

M/S. SWASTIK OIL INDUSTRIES,TONK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, , JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 145(1) and if the provisions was not invoked then the estimate of profit would not possible in the eyes of law. Further, the AO made trading addition considering the yield ratio of similar business carrying out same job at same station in the same conditions. Here I am of view that if the same businesses with same

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Housing Corporation Ltd (supra) held that assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) from the net profit for the purpose of computing “Book Profit” u/s 115JB of the Act. Chheda Electricals and Electronics (P.) Ltd -vs.- DCIT (ITA NOs. 400 & 668/Pune/2018 dated 04-05-2022) In the said case, the assessee was claiming deduction u/s 80IC

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, KOTA vs. SHRI CHANDI RAM, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

house hold withdrawals Rs.24,000/-, 4. Addition on a/c of accrued interest on NSCs Rs.9,575/-, 5. Undeclared contract receipt Rs.5,71,422/-, 6.Bogus current liability/ undeclared receipts Rs.35,83,978/-. B. Against order u/s 143(3)/254 dated 21.04.2008 of the AO. CITIA) passed order on28.01.2015 in appeal No 2895/2008-09 as under- 1. Confirmed the addition of Rs.4