VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

12. The ld AR submitted that any notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

12. The ld AR submitted that any notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,040/-. Hence, the pleading on the ground of equity also fails. 5.7 Thus though surrender was during the search in course of statements u/s 132(4), the disclosure u/s 132(4), by itself cannot redeem the appellant from deeming provisions of the explanation 5A to section 271(1)( c) of the Act. Factually speaking the statement

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

68,73,799 (v) Silver items at residence of 12,70,861 Partners Total stock including silver items 39,81,44,660 The above stock was valued at market price as on the date of search. In order to estimate the value of stock at cost, the GP declared in last year should be deducted from the market value

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

68,470/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain and commission charges of Rs. 9,000/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act at the total income of Rs. 12,24,18,200/-. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

68,70,840\n5,60,04,220\n3,91,33,381\n31-85\n2017-18\n29.04.2022\n2,87,89,300\n19,44,18,090\n16,56,28,786\n86-146\n2018-19\n27.04.2022\n18,28,93,140\n21,75,43,310\n3,46,50,173\n147-203\n2019-20\n27.04.2022

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of 9 DCIT Vs Jyoti Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. 9 DCIT Vs Rajendra Agarwal Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

68,70,840\n5,60,04,220\n3,91,33,381\n31-85\n2017-18\n29.04.2022\n2,87,89,300\n19,44,18,090\n16,56,28,786\n86-146\n2018-19\n27.04.2022\n18,28,93,140\n21,75,43,310\n3,46,50,173\n147-203\n2019-20\n27.04.2022

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

68,70,840\n5,60,04,220\n3,91,33,381\n31-85\n2017-18\n29.04.2022\n2,87,89,300\n19,44,18,090\n16,56,28,786\n86-146\n2018-19\n27.04.2022\n18,28,93,140\n21,75,43,310\n3,46,50,173\n147-203\n2019-20\n27.04.2022

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

12-2017 was relevant and therefore, the period of 6 months has to be reckoned from that date. Consequently, the limitation from that date the limitation had already expired. 7.2 After careful consideration, I find that the issue involved in the present case is fully covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

12-2017 was relevant and therefore, the period of 6 months has to be reckoned from that date. Consequently, the limitation from that date the limitation had already expired. 7.2 After careful consideration, I find that the issue involved in the present case is fully covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

68,70,840\n5,60,04,220\n3,91,33,381\n31-85\n2017-18\n29.04.2022\n2,87,89,300\n19,44,18,090\n16,56,28,786\n86-146\n2018-19\n27.04.2022\n18,28,93,140\n21,75,43,310\n3,46,50,173\n147-203\n2019-20\n27.04.2022

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

1 April 2018 that where such donations are made with specific directions to form part of corpus of the recipient entity, it will not be considered as application of income in the hands of the donor entity. However, the donations with no specific directions to the recipient entity continue to be eligible as application of income. 48. In the instant

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

12 SMT. JAMNA DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WRD 7(2), JAIPUR the assessee was liable to be rejected. Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') conferred only a discretion on the ITO to deal with the investment as income of the assessee and that it did not make it mandatory on his part to deal with

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

12 by virtue of the provisions contained in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 13, tax shall be charged on the relevant income or part of relevant income at the maximum marginal rate. Therefore, the exemption u/s 11 on the surplus declared by the assessee cannot be denied as held by various decisions

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

c)(ii) and\r\nSection 13(1)(d) for such reason assessment was reopened under\r\nSection 147—Assessing Officer observed that from impugned documents it was\r\nseen that assessee had deposited sums with N and both these companies are\r\nspecified persons of assessee—Therefore, Assessing Officer held that these\r\namounts are to be taxed separately