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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 taxmann.com 287 (SC), the assessee-University had been constituted under the Visveswaraiah Technological University Act, 1994 ('VTU Act') and the issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was whether the assessee university was eligible for exemption u/s 10(23)(iiiab) of the Act. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the entitlement for exemption under

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 treatings deposits of SBNs found in its bank\naccount as unexplained credit in hands of assessee Held, yes [Paras 70 to 77] [In\nfavour of revenue]\"\nThe relevant paras from the order are as under:-\n\"72. Furthermore, the conduct of the assessee was abnormal and it had caused\nimmense harm to well intention notification

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

10,11,12 and 13 of the appeal of the assessee where the addition u/s 68 of the act has been made by the Id CIT (A) enhancing income of the assessee holding that sale 14 Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT consideration received by the assessee on sale of property is chargeable

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. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not find any favour from the order of the ld. CIT(A), he has preferred an appeal before this tribunal on the grounds so raised and reproduced here in above in para 2. In support of the grounds so raised by the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10,00,000 3 71A 12.02.2015 2015-16 1,50,00,000 4 71A 24.02.2015 2015-16 25,00,000 5 71A 11.03.2015 2015-16 30,00,000 6 71A 25.03.2015 2015-16 50,00,000 On perusal of these documents the assessing officer was of the view that these loose papers appear to be related to cash loans/advances given

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10,00,000 3 71A 12.02.2015 2015-16 1,50,00,000 4 71A 24.02.2015 2015-16 25,00,000 5 71A 11.03.2015 2015-16 30,00,000 6 71A 25.03.2015 2015-16 50,00,000 On perusal of these documents the assessing officer was of the view that these loose papers appear to be related to cash loans/advances given

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10,00,000 3 71A 12.02.2015 2015-16 1,50,00,000 4 71A 24.02.2015 2015-16 25,00,000 5 71A 11.03.2015 2015-16 30,00,000 6 71A 25.03.2015 2015-16 50,00,000 On perusal of these documents the assessing officer was of the view that these loose papers appear to be related to cash loans/advances given

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10,00,000 3 71A 12.02.2015 2015-16 1,50,00,000 4 71A 24.02.2015 2015-16 25,00,000 5 71A 11.03.2015 2015-16 30,00,000 6 71A 25.03.2015 2015-16 50,00,000 On perusal of these documents the assessing officer was of the view that these loose papers appear to be related to cash loans/advances given

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

68,155/-. This deduction was revised in assessment proceeding to Rs.1,41,53,488/- but restricted to Rs.1,08,11,680/- i.e. to the extent of available profit. 4. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction for the reason that assessee has not fulfilled the following conditions prescribed u/s 80- IB(10):- (i) As per section 80-IB(10

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

5,\npage 2 and 3 of the assessment order, it is found by the A.O. that the nature of\nbusiness mentioned in all the income. tax returns filed by the appellant including\nthe return filed for the current and earlier assessment years is 'legal profession\nand not trading in gold bars. On verification of Audited balance sheet & Profit &\nloss

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)

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess) without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. 2. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

10 Sanjay Lunia vs.ITO (2) Not withstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1)." The real purpose of introducing this provision was to charge higher

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

68,58,639/-. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in rejecting the claim of Deduction u/s 80-IA while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

5)—Amount said to have received as donation was added back to\nincome of assessee under Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by\nAssessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim for\ncarry forward of depreciation etc—Tribunal after taking note of factual position,\nmore particularly, that addition which was made in reassessment

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

5)—Amount said to have received as donation was added back to\nincome of assessee under Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by\nAssessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim for\ncarry forward of depreciation etc—Tribunal after taking note of factual position,\nmore particularly, that addition which was made in reassessment

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee he challenges the addition of Rs. 6,26,88,011/- under section 68 by treating the contract income from M/s DRAIPL as bogus. During the course of search proceedings in the case of M/s. DRAIPL

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee he challenges the addition of Rs. 6,26,88,011/- under section 68 by treating the contract income from M/s DRAIPL as bogus. During the course of search proceedings in the case of M/s. DRAIPL