JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 69 cannot be invoked and the sundry debtors has to be treated as business or profession income of the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, no existence of evidence in relation to any unaccounted independent identifiable other investment which was found during the course of survey. It is also admitted fact the appellant admittedly is engaged in business from

M/S BHANDARI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-3, JAIPUR

section 43B, since the appellant has already added back Rs 2,20,365/-, the addition of the balance amount is confirmed. Ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee explained that additions sustained by the lower authorities are not correct and the assessee has already disallowed the amount debited

M/S BHANDARI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

section 43B, since the appellant has already added back Rs 2,20,365/-, the addition of the balance amount is confirmed. Ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee explained that additions sustained by the lower authorities are not correct and the assessee has already disallowed the amount debited

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

housing, public utility services and all other works related to the construction. We completely rely on the order passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals), we place our argument as below on the merits of the case; Ground No 1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(Appeals), NFAC has erred in del3eting

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

house property, capital gain, business or profession. The\nrelevant provision is reproduced hereinbelow :\n1.\nS. 115BBE\"(1) Where the total income of an assessee,\nincludes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section\n69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the\nreturn of income furnished under section 139; or 2. determined by\nthe Assessing

J.S.FOURWHEEL MOTORS (P) LTD ,ALWAR vs. ACIT. CIRCLE 1 ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

House Property and the Id AO has not given any opportunity before making the addition. Thus the addition so made is just on the presumption, assumption and surmises of the ld. AO and the CIT (Appeals), has erred in not giving any finding thereon and also erred in not disposing off the this ground on merit. 4. Section 24 rent

SANDEEP JAIN,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4) JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

property. Though assessee had challenged the amount of addition made on this account while filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), separate ground for this disallowance could not be raised, therefore assessee has filed this as additional ground of appeal alongwith application to admit the same, though technically there is no additional ground. Facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares

BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. DY. CIT (ACIT) CIRCLE -2 AJMER , CR BUILDING,OPP. SESSION COURT,JAIPUR ROAD ,AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbaroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, 2343 Rajasthan Patrika Building, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer – 305004 Pan No. Aaajb1164C ...... Appellant

43B and 14A of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn partly allowed the appeal of the assessee but confirmed the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us. 4. We have gone

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)

43B are not applicable in such case and after the decision of the apex court there is no scope to grant the relief to the assessee. 12.5 We have heard the rival contentions & perused material placed on record and the written submissions filed. Based on the record the bench noted that the assessee - appellant on 15-04-2019 initiated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. RISHIRAJ SINGH, JHALAWAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

House Property. We are therefore, of the considered view that since there is\nno change in the facts of the case, the rule of consistency applies in accordance with Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Radhaswami Satsang vs. CIT (supra).\"\nGround of Appeal No.3\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

SMT. SUMAN CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

House Road Circle-01, Opp Railway Station Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADQPC7048F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA & Sh. Harshit Agrawal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 28/08/2025 mn?kks"k.kk

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, NEHRU SEHKAR BHAWAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

property in the goods having been passed, and appropriation of goods to the contract having taken place, nothing survived in law and/ or on facts for any further claims between the parties except by way of contingent claim. DCIT vs. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited 4.3 The Export Pass Fees mentioned in the purchase Bilts were deposited

RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

property in the goods having been passed, and appropriation of goods to the contract having taken place, nothing survived in law and/ or on facts for any further claims between the parties except by way of contingent claim. DCIT vs. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited 4.3 The Export Pass Fees mentioned in the purchase Bilts were deposited

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

Property Developer Pvt. Ltd. order dated 30.07.2019. The ld. CIT(A) has not speak a single word on theses issue and submission, which show he either has satisfied with our plea or he is not having anything to rebut our contention. Hence the assessment order is liable to be quashed on this ground. 2. Wrongly Interpreted that assessee has considered