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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5) SCR 285, the issue of what is\n\"prohibited by law\" was considered by this Court, in the context of interpretation of\na condition in a statutory license (for vending liquor) which prohibited transfer of the\nlicense by way of sub-letting or entering into a partnership agreement. While\ndealing with the recognition of such a partnership under

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

17,48,500/- made by the AO by applying the provisions of Section 68 and taxed as per provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. All the points or allegation noted by the ld. AO is duly considered and discussed by the ld. CIT(A) while dealing with the appeal of the assessee. The revenue

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 /

68 on income of Rs. 6,45,810/- surrendered by the assessee in revised computation which is again illegal and deserves to be deleted. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT Appeal has erred in passing the order in the name of deceased persons in-spite of the fact that this

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)

68 on income of Rs. 6,45,810/- surrendered by the assessee in revised computation which is again illegal and deserves to be deleted. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT Appeal has erred in passing the order in the name of deceased persons in-spite of the fact that this

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)

17 of the order:- “…Under the new provision, i.e. Section 64(1)(iii) a new liability has been prescribed and not the rate for ascertaining the liability. Such new liability under the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be given a retrospective effect...” 4.40.v Hon’ble High Court held that tax rate existing as on the point of time

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)

17-18) without making any deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance as may be admissible to an assessee under any provision of the Act. A perusal of the afore said provisions show that this Section is applicable where assessee's income is recorded in books but has not been offered to tax and the assessee fails

M/S RAMAVTAR KRISHANAVTAR,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

68 (SC) 4. Araska Diamond (P) Ltd. vs ACIT (2014) 52 taxmann. Com 238 (Mumbai- Trib) 5. Shri Prem Prakash Gupta vs ITO (ITA No. 599/JP/2013 dated 11-08-2013 2.5 The Bench has heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and also taken into consideration the case laws cited by both the sides. In this

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

17-10-16 से 08-11-2016 में श्री नितिन विजय को गोल्ड के विरूद्ध मेरे द्वारा किसी प्रकार का\nएडवांस नहीं दिया गया है।\n2. जब एडवांस ही नहीं दिया गया है तो नकद या चेक किसी का विवरण नहीं है। यदि फिर भी आपको बैंक\nखाते का विवरण बाहिए तो मैं प्रस्तुत कर दूंगी।\n3. मैंने कर निर्धारण

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)

5 to 25, may please be considered in correct perspective. 4.2. Assessee maintained regular books of accounts including day to day stock records. Books of accounts of the assessee stand Audited under the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the Audit report, there were no adverse remarks of the Auditors and the Auditors found

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)

17 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR jdugement of ITAT and High Court on same issue in assessee’s own case in preceding assessment years. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 2 to 4 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’5.2 I have considered the facts

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

d. CIT(A) at Para 9 of Pg 22 of his order 5. It may also be noted that AO by treating these amounts as loan has made a reference to Addl. CIT for levy of penalty proceedings u/s 2711 for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS. Thereafter, the Addl. CIT imposed the penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

d. CIT(A) at Para 9 of Pg 22 of his order 5. It may also be noted that AO by treating these amounts as loan has made a reference to Addl. CIT for levy of penalty proceedings u/s 2711 for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS. Thereafter, the Addl. CIT imposed the penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

d. CIT(A) at Para 9 of Pg 22 of his order 5. It may also be noted that AO by treating these amounts as loan has made a reference to Addl. CIT for levy of penalty proceedings u/s 2711 for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS. Thereafter, the Addl. CIT imposed the penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

d. CIT(A) at Para 9 of Pg 22 of his order 5. It may also be noted that AO by treating these amounts as loan has made a reference to Addl. CIT for levy of penalty proceedings u/s 2711 for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS. Thereafter, the Addl. CIT imposed the penalty

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

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)

5) of Section 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the CBDT hereby directs that the Income Tax Authorities of the National e-Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as "the NeAC") specified in column (2) of the Schedule below, having its headquarters at the place mentioned in column

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)

5) of Section 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the CBDT hereby directs that the Income Tax Authorities of the National e-Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as "the NeAC") specified in column (2) of the Schedule below, having its headquarters at the place mentioned in column

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

68 of the Act. The facts of the case as stated above are similar to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Kailash Jewellery House (ITA No.613/2010). In the facts of above case, a cash of Rs. 24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition