DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

reassess under section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or\notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for\nany assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\n\nThat the heading of section 14A, i.e. “Expenditure incurred in relation to\nincome not includible in total

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

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

2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an\nassessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income\nwhich does not form part of the total income under this Act :\nProvided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer\neither to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

2) of Act where the default arise for “Under Reported” 7 Urmila Rajendra Mundra vs. ITO Further refer LD/72/2018 MUMBAI ITA NO. 13/MUM/2023 in case of SALTWATER STUDIO LLP v/s NFAC date 22-05-23 where on A/c of Claim of EXPENDITURE disallowed; Penalty u/sec 270A was deleted. Further clause (3) to sec 270A sub clause (ii) to said section

SAURABH AGROTECH (P) LTD ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the ld Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-IV, Jaipur has erred in confirming the same by not deciding the issue on merit, though all the material and submissions were before him. 3. That the Id. Assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

14A;\n2. No addition on account of Finance charges of Rs.5,19,49,691/- by\nmisunderstanding the same as part of periodic overlay expenses; and\nnot making adjustment on account of addition made for Periodic\nOverlay expenses while computing book profit;\n3. Amortisation of expenses on construction of toll road;\n4. Donation already added back in earlier years and reverted

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOTA

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2018-19 respectively. The grounds raised by the assesseein all these appeals are common except with variance in figures, therefore, for the sake of convenience. Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. 2. In ITA No. 672/JPR/2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- ITA NO. 672/JP/2024

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOTA

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2018-19 respectively. The grounds raised by the assesseein all these appeals are common except with variance in figures, therefore, for the sake of convenience. Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. 2. In ITA No. 672/JPR/2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- ITA NO. 672/JP/2024

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2018-19 respectively. The grounds raised by the assesseein all these appeals are common except with variance in figures, therefore, for the sake of convenience. Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. 2. In ITA No. 672/JPR/2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- ITA NO. 672/JP/2024

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

14A\nRs.2,05,361/-\nTotal Benefit\nRs.25,07,454/-\n4.\nThe ld. CIT (A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming\nthe interest charged u/s 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of\ncharging of any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary to the\nprovisions

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

reassessment proceedings. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in disallowing the depreciation of Rs. 37,83,500/- on windmill. The action of ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

section 143(3)/ 147 of the Act by raising the following grounds of\nappeal.\n\"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CTT(A) has\nerred in confirming the re-opening u/s 147 of the Act, of the assessment completed\nu/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arbitrarily.\nITA NO.616/JPR/2024

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

14A of the Income Tax Act made by the AO without recording proper satisfaction and without considering the submissions that no expenditure was incurred by the appellant.’’ 9 MACRO PROPERTIES PVT LTD. VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2. First, we take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 for adjudication. Apropos Grounds of appeal

SOURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

14A and partly sustained the disallowances u/s. 80IB made by the AO. Against that order of the ld. CIT(A) both the assessee as well as the revenue challenged that order before the Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided both appeals [ITA No. 258/JP/2015] of the assessee and [ITA No. 243/JP/2015] of the Department, vide its order dated

SAURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

14A and partly sustained the disallowances u/s. 80IB made by the AO. Against that order of the ld. CIT(A) both the assessee as well as the revenue challenged that order before the Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided both appeals [ITA No. 258/JP/2015] of the assessee and [ITA No. 243/JP/2015] of the Department, vide its order dated