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)

reassessment is to be done in two different stages challenging the reasons of reopening and (i) challenging the assessment order. Assessee's challenge to the order of the assessing officer rejecting the objection against the reasons of reopening and assessce's challenge to the assessment order are two separate proceedings. Assessee cannot challenge order of the assessing officer disposing objections

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.

reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO, in passing the order without proper opportunity of cross examination. The action of the Ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case

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

32(1)(iia) of the Act during the course of original assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. Now, examining the said claim of additional depreciation during the reassessment

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

32(iia) provides as (iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, be an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing or in the business of generation, transmission, or distribution of power

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

iia) any asset, not being an investment or deposit in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11, where such asset is not held by the trust or institution, otherwise than in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11, after the expiry of one year from

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,VIDYUT BHAWAN, JAN PATH, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, , JAIPUR

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

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

reassessment proceedings ,the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dt.03.10.2019requiring the assessee to justify the write-off of Rs.200 crore due from Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited in its books of account as bad debts. He further required the assessee to provide proof of including this amount in computing the income for earlier years.In response to same, assessee filed

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the period of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded: “The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on which the report

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the period of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded: “The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on which the report

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the period of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded: “The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on which the report

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

32,800 2010-11 1,30,94,390 26,84,725 11,84,725 + + 29,75,859 29,75,859 2011-12 3,20,29,420 82,59,551 82,59,551 2012-13 3,00,06,860 69,54,913 69,54,913 2013-14 14,87,160 2,16,92,730 Nil Since

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

32,800 2010-11 1,30,94,390 26,84,725 11,84,725 + + 29,75,859 29,75,859 2011-12 3,20,29,420 82,59,551 82,59,551 2012-13 3,00,06,860 69,54,913 69,54,913 2013-14 14,87,160 2,16,92,730 Nil Since

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

32,800 2010-11 1,30,94,390 26,84,725 11,84,725 + + 29,75,859 29,75,859 2011-12 3,20,29,420 82,59,551 82,59,551 2012-13 3,00,06,860 69,54,913 69,54,913 2013-14 14,87,160 2,16,92,730 Nil Since

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

32,800 2010-11 1,30,94,390 26,84,725 11,84,725 + + 29,75,859 29,75,859 2011-12 3,20,29,420 82,59,551 82,59,551 2012-13 3,00,06,860 69,54,913 69,54,913 2013-14 14,87,160 2,16,92,730 Nil Since

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

32,800 2010-11 1,30,94,390 26,84,725 11,84,725 + + 29,75,859 29,75,859 2011-12 3,20,29,420 82,59,551 82,59,551 2012-13 3,00,06,860 69,54,913 69,54,913 2013-14 14,87,160 2,16,92,730 Nil Since

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

32,800 2010-11 1,30,94,390 26,84,725 11,84,725 + + 29,75,859 29,75,859 2011-12 3,20,29,420 82,59,551 82,59,551 2012-13 3,00,06,860 69,54,913 69,54,913 2013-14 14,87,160 2,16,92,730 Nil Since

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

32,800 2010-11 1,30,94,390 26,84,725 11,84,725 + + 29,75,859 29,75,859 2011-12 3,20,29,420 82,59,551 82,59,551 2012-13 3,00,06,860 69,54,913 69,54,913 2013-14 14,87,160 2,16,92,730 Nil Since

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

32,800 2010-11 1,30,94,390 26,84,725 11,84,725 + + 29,75,859 29,75,859 2011-12 3,20,29,420 82,59,551 82,59,551 2012-13 3,00,06,860 69,54,913 69,54,913 2013-14 14,87,160 2,16,92,730 Nil Since

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

32,800 2010-11 1,30,94,390 26,84,725 11,84,725 + + 29,75,859 29,75,859 2011-12 3,20,29,420 82,59,551 82,59,551 2012-13 3,00,06,860 69,54,913 69,54,913 2013-14 14,87,160 2,16,92,730 Nil Since