SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10(1) was rightly denied and same was treated as income from the other sources.” 33. On going through the bunch of evidence where in the holding of land is as much as 230 vighas are in possession and the assessee has placed on records the accounts of the agricultural income, corroborated this income with the seized bills related

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10(1) was rightly denied and same was treated as income from the other sources.” 33. On going through the bunch of evidence where in the holding of land is as much as 230 vighas are in possession and the assessee has placed on records the accounts of the agricultural income, corroborated this income with the seized bills related

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10(1) was rightly denied and same was treated as income from the other sources.” 33. On going through the bunch of evidence where in the holding of land is as much as 230 vighas are in possession and the assessee has placed on records the accounts of the agricultural income, corroborated this income with the seized bills related

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10(1) was rightly denied and same was treated as income from the other sources.” 33. On going through the bunch of evidence where in the holding of land is as much as 230 vighas are in possession and the assessee has placed on records the accounts of the agricultural income, corroborated this income with the seized bills related

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10 of the order. Hon'ble ITAT after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT (Central)-3 V/s. M/s. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No. 68-73/2021 and various other High Courts and decision of Hon'ble ITAT Vishakhapatnam Bench on identical issue in the case of ACIT

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

10 of the order. Hon'ble ITAT\nafter considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of Pr. CIT (Central)-3 V/s. M/s. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No.\n68-73/2021 and various other High Courts and decision of Hon'ble\nITAT Vishakhapatnam Bench on identical issue in the case of ACIT\nv/s

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

34 M/s Singhania University vs. CIT(E) the 1995 Act to Section 4(1) and also the insertion of the proviso, has to be held ultra-vires. (Page 184 Paper Book 2) 105. In our considered opinion, Section 12 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 would encompass apart from determining the course contents with reference to which

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GURU PRAGYA INFRA (P) LTD., JAIPUR

68 (Mad.) (PB 37-38). In this case it was held that within a composite housing project, where there are eligible and ineligible units, the assessee can claim deduction in respect of eligible units in the project and even within the block, the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief in the units satisfying the extent of the built

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

10. It is submitted that when the assessee made cash sales, the amended provisions of section 115BBE were not in existence. 11. Where an amendment, as under 92B, although was introduced having a retrospective effect, was held by the courts, to have a prospective effect, by the same analogy, an amendment to Section 115BBE, putting an additional burden

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

68,705/-\nas they were remained unexplained—However, while completing assessment\nAssessing Officer disallowed 25% of purchases for want of bills and vouchers—\nAssessing Officer also disallowed opening capital shown by assessee in his\ncapital account as no explanation was offered by assessee—There is one more\naddition which was made by assessee is in respect of license fee paid

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

68,705/-\nas they were remained unexplained—However, while completing assessment\nAssessing Officer disallowed 25% of purchases for want of bills and vouchers—\nAssessing Officer also disallowed opening capital shown by assessee in his\ncapital account as no explanation was offered by assessee—There is one more\naddition which was made by assessee is in respect of license fee paid

GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

10,000/- on 21.09.2016 and Rs. 5,00,000/ on 21.09.2016 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 28.10.2016. The learned AO has on 28.10.2016. The learned AO has mentioned that in his statement recorded under section 131 on 29.11.20 mentioned that in his statement recorded under section 131 on 29.11.20 mentioned that in his statement recorded under section

SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

10,000/- on 21.09.2016 and Rs. 5,00,000/ on 21.09.2016 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 28.10.2016. The learned AO has on 28.10.2016. The learned AO has mentioned that in his statement recorded under section 131 on 29.11.20 mentioned that in his statement recorded under section 131 on 29.11.20 mentioned that in his statement recorded under section

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

34,571/- to the total income of the Appellant for the AY 17-18 vide its order dated 06.02.2025 (Refer page No. 67-84 of Paper Book) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') on the ground that appellant failed to produce supporting evidences to establish genuineness of parties

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

34[Additional 35[Joint Commissioner or] Director or] Commissioner or Joint Director] who is directed under clause (b) of subsection (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under this Act ;]” In view of the specific definition of assessing officer in section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

10(37) of the\nACT.\nPlease take note of section 28 of LAC Act 1894 which is reproduced as\nunder:\nThe section 28 of LAC Act is reproducebelow :\n\"28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess\ncompensation\n[If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to\nhave awarded

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 and added it to income of assessee – On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition – On revenue’s appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs. 19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of ‘D’ Ltd. which were converted into drafts and in this manner ‘D’ Ltd. subscribed to share capital of assessee company

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

10\nyears. No such office local persons said that they have\nnever heard this company's name in this area.\n43. Further as discussed in above para that the letters sent for seeking\ninformation u/s.133(6) of the IT Act, 1961 returned back undelivered. Thus it is\nclear that the addresses of the said companies are not genuine. Moreover