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)

iia) of clause (24) of section 2,] [or which is of the nature referred to in sub-section (4A) of section 11,] tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11 [or section 12], as if the relevant income not so exempt were the income

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith the date

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference\nto the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

68,932/- to the\nperson covered u/s. 13(3) of the Act and the same was considered as diversion of\nfunds for the benefit of the trustees. Thus, the notice no where suggested that the\naction of the PCIT is proposed to cancel the registration of the trust in a new law\nand that too retrospectively. He also pointed

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to\nthe Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith the date

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith the date

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,VIDYUT BHAWAN, JAN PATH, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, , JAIPUR

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

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

iia) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB, the depreciation claimed is higher by Rs.269,10,85,274/- due to change in accounting estimate of the assets which is required to be added to the book profit.The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO by holding that AO has correctly added back Rs.269

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

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

iia) and (iii) of s. 132(5) and obligated him to release the remaining seized assets. In this background, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case before it, held that unless an order under s. 132(5) of the Act is passed, the AO could not direct that the assets seized be adjusted towards advance

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

iia) and (iii) of s. 132(5) and obligated him to release the remaining seized assets. In this background, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case before it, held that unless an order under s. 132(5) of the Act is passed, the AO could not direct that the assets seized be adjusted towards advance

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

iia) and (iii) of s. 132(5) and obligated him to release the remaining seized assets. In this background, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case before it, held that unless an order under s. 132(5) of the Act is passed, the AO could not direct that the assets seized be adjusted towards advance

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

iia) and (iii) of s. 132(5) and obligated him to release the remaining seized assets. In this background, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case before it, held that unless an order under s. 132(5) of the Act is passed, the AO could not direct that the assets seized be adjusted towards advance

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

iia) and (iii) of s. 132(5) and obligated him to release the remaining seized assets. In this background, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case before it, held that unless an order under s. 132(5) of the Act is passed, the AO could not direct that the assets seized be adjusted towards advance

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

iia) and (iii) of s. 132(5) and obligated him to release the remaining seized assets. In this background, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case before it, held that unless an order under s. 132(5) of the Act is passed, the AO could not direct that the assets seized be adjusted towards advance

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

iia) and (iii) of s. 132(5) and obligated him to release the remaining seized assets. In this background, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case before it, held that unless an order under s. 132(5) of the Act is passed, the AO could not direct that the assets seized be adjusted towards advance

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

iia) and (iii) of s. 132(5) and obligated him to release the remaining seized assets. In this background, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case before it, held that unless an order under s. 132(5) of the Act is passed, the AO could not direct that the assets seized be adjusted towards advance