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

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 406/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Shankar Lal Ludhani through DCIT, Vs. Late Devi Ludhani As Legal Heir Central Circle, Shop No. 5, Opp. Plaza Cinema Ajmer

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

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

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

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

d lnL; ,o Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 398,399, 400 & 401/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 cuke Shri Ramesh Chand Bansal The DCIT Vs. 27, Ravidatt, Arya Nagar, Central Circle Beawar Ajmer

TRANSINDIA NONWOVENS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, furthermore second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 technically. However, the order is in fact the original order of appeal not\nrectification order. No relief was given to assessee and hence this appeal was\nfiled.\nThe ground of appeal is as under:-\n1.\nOn the facts and in the circumnutates of the case as well

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of s. 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of s. 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of s. 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 and taxed the same in terms of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1ST Appeal The assessment order so passed by assessment unit was appealed before the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC who also sustained the addition made by ld. AO. Submissions :- The appellant wishes to withdraw ground nos. 1, 5,6,7 and 8 as taken

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

68 but it should have been made u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 then the jurisdiction of CIT (A) in limited to deciding the matter whether the addition u/s 69A is correct or not. In the appellate proceeding the addition cannot be confirmed by applying all together different section by invoking a section for which satisfaction

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

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 267/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 cuke I.T.O., Shri Amit Agarwal, Ward 4(1), Vs. 101, Near Pondrik Park, Jaipur. Brahampuri, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj

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)

1,29,27,430/-. Based on the search action on M/s. Dinesh R Agrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd (DRAIPL) the revenue was in possession of the information that the assessee benefited of the unaccounted money by way of booking bogus subcontracts expenses. Record reveals that the assessee received sub contract of Rs. 8,69,21,424/- from Dinesh R Agrawal Infracon

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)

1,29,27,430/-. Based on the search action on M/s. Dinesh R Agrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd (DRAIPL) the revenue was in possession of the information that the assessee benefited of the unaccounted money by way of booking bogus subcontracts expenses. Record reveals that the assessee received sub contract of Rs. 8,69,21,424/- from Dinesh R Agrawal Infracon