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

68,40,099/- relating to TP adjustment.” 9. On appeal by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has stated that Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable as the assessee has not been able to prove that good faith and due diligence has been followed and the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c

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

68,40,099/- relating to TP adjustment.” 9. On appeal by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has stated that Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable as the assessee has not been able to prove that good faith and due diligence has been followed and the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

13-10-2010 i.e. after the due date for filing the return 31-07-2008. That makes the explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act clearly applicable. 5.6 Even no return was filed u/s 139. The total income returned in the return in response to Notice u/s 153A is Rs. 4,68

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

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

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

13,750 (ii) M/s Ram Bhajo's Jodhpur 4,79,55,354 4,65,15,883 (iii) M/s Ram Bhajo's Jaipur 27,94,24,619 32,89,89,166 (iv) At residence of Partners 63,55,000 Total 35,11,24,031 39,68,73,799 (v) Silver items at residence of 12,70,861 Partners Total stock including

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

68,088/- being\ndisallowances out of certain expenses claimed. The assessee firm filed an\nappeal against the said order. Thereafter Ld. A.O. issued a notice u/s 154 dated\n10-7-2017 on the ground that assessee was allowed set off of brought forward\nunabsorbed depreciation of Rs.21,13,949/- of A.Y. 2001-02 & earlier years which\nwas irregular

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)

section with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

13,87,801/- had escaped assessment on\naccount of non-filing of return and on account of such erroneous and illegitimate\ndeduction. To bring this amount of income to tax, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

13,87,801/- had escaped assessment on\naccount of non-filing of return and on account of such erroneous and illegitimate\ndeduction. To bring this amount of income to tax, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

13,87,801/- had escaped assessment on\naccount of non-filing of return and on account of such erroneous and illegitimate\ndeduction. To bring this amount of income to tax, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

13,87,801/- had escaped assessment on\naccount of non-filing of return and on account of such erroneous and illegitimate\ndeduction. To bring this amount of income to tax, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

13,87,801/- had escaped assessment on\naccount of non-filing of return and on account of such erroneous and illegitimate\ndeduction. To bring this amount of income to tax, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held\r\nthat a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or\r\n139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted\r\nupon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further\r\nproceedings in relation

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

68,70,579/- and as on 31.03.2011 is Rs.4,40,91,629/- and thus there is an increase of Rs.2,27,78,950 /- in the year under consideration. Accordingly, the assessee was required to explain that why the development funds has not been included in the Gross receipts but taken directly to the balance sheet. Assessee filed the explanation which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

section 271(1)(c), the Id. AO\nfound that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of\nincome to the extent of amount of Rs. 1,97,04,164/-. For that reason, he\nhold that the 'Assessee' has committed default u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act\nand, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed

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

68-71 of paper book) Copy of Balance Sheet of Assessment Year 2013-14. (page no. 72 of paper book) Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Kota. Copy of Capital Account of Assessment Year 2013-14 (page no. 73 of paper book Copy of Assessment Order dated 22.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kota

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

13-10-2015] held as under:-\n\"10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-\ncompliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the\nsaid order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings\ncould be initiated. In other words, the initiation