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

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

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

e) Also refer AVG Construction Pvt. Ltd v/s ITO Ward 6(2) Jaipur in ITA no.\r\n90/Jp/2020 dt. 02.09.2021 under the same facts and circumstances copy is\r\nenclosed.\r\n(f) Recently the Honble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of\r\nShriShambhu DayalSaraf v/s IT in ITA No. 558/Jp/2013 dt02.07.2018 58 TW\r\n355(Jp), has also

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

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

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

68 (Allahabad)/[2021] 438 ITR 657 (Allahabad)\n[10-02-2020) held that Where Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of\ncontract/subcontract income but failed to add interest income shown in books as\nother income, subsequently, on basis of audit objection, Assessing Officer was\njustified in invoking section 147/148 and reassessing 'interest income\nHon'ble Supreme Court

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

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 envisage

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

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)

E- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment under sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation

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)

E- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment under sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation

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

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 to tax as undisclosed income u/s 68

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

1). A search u/s 132\nwas carried out at various business and residential premises of firm and its\npartners on 05-02-2015.\nAction of Ld. A.O.\nThe Ld. A.O. thereafter issued notice u/s 153A of I.T. Act, 1961 on 13-05-2015\nand in response thereto the assessee filed return of income on 08-06-2015\ndeclaring an income

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)

e. Rs. 4,10,000/- 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

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 /

e. Rs. 4,10,000/- 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

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

68 of the Act. The action of Id.\nCIT(A) is illegal unjustified arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,28,000/-.\n3.\nThe assessee craves his right to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds\non or before the hearing.”\n3. Succinctly, the fact

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

e filing acknowledgement no. 292344431061117 declaring NIL income. Copy of ITRV and computation of Income are available at (APB 1-4). The ITR was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on returned income. On 02.06.2021 the ld. AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the approval of the JCIT

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)

13,20,118/- October & November, 2015 Cash deposits made in Bank a/c during 82,50,000/- the months of October & November, 2016 Cash deposits made in 1,25,000/- Bank a/c during the months of October & November, 2015 Cash Deposit in Bank a/c during the 1,05,80,000/- period from 1.04.2016 to 30.11.2016 Cash deposit in Bank a/c during

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)

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 applicable in this