SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SONI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 24. We observe that this amendment takes effect from 1st of April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee current loss is allowable

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SONI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 24. We observe that this amendment takes effect from 1st of April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee current loss is allowable

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SONI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 24. We observe that this amendment takes effect from 1st of April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee current loss is allowable

SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SONI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 24. We observe that this amendment takes effect from 1st of April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee current loss is allowable

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

221 ) [ in favour of assessee ] 5.8 In the case of POIT, Bikaner va Dilip Kumar Swami (2019) 106 taxmann.com 50 (Ra) it was held that "Section 68

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

221 ) [ in favour of assessee ] 5.8 In the case of POIT, Bikaner va Dilip Kumar Swami (2019) 106 taxmann.com 50 (Ra) it was held that "Section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

221 Taxman 5/264 CTR 532(All.) (HC)\n-The Tribunal is not a competent authority to adjudicate upon the\njurisdiction of the AO when it is not raised before the Assessing Authonty\n(iii) Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO (High Court of Delhi) CWP No. 11844/2016\n(2018) 94 taxmann.com355(Delhi)\nWhether in terms of section 124(3)(b) assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

221 TAXMAN 180, CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat) and others as referred by the Appellant, I am of the considered view that Appellant duly discharged its burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. It is further seen that M/s Sangam Distributors

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

221 TAXMAN 180, CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat) and others as referred by the Appellant, I am of the considered view that Appellant duly discharged its burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. It is further seen that M/s Sangam Distributors

M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

221 TAXMAN 180, CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat) and others as referred by the Appellant, I am of the considered view that Appellant duly discharged its burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. It is further seen that no notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

221 TAXMAN 180, CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat) and others as referred by the Appellant, I am of the considered view that Appellant duly discharged its burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. It is further seen that no notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

221 TAXMAN 180, CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat) and others as referred by the Appellant, I am of the considered view that Appellant duly discharged its burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. It is further seen that no notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

221 TAXMAN 180, CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat) and others as referred by the Appellant, I am of the considered view that Appellant duly discharged its burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. It is further seen that no notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

221 TAXMAN 180, CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat) and others as referred by the Appellant, I am of the considered view that Appellant duly discharged its burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. It is further seen that no notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

221 TAXMAN 180, CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat) and others as referred by the Appellant, I am of the considered view that Appellant duly discharged its burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. It is further seen that no notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

221 TAXMAN 180, CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat) and others as referred by the Appellant, I am of the considered view that Appellant duly discharged its burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. It is further seen that no notice

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

221 TAXMAN 180, CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat) and others as referred by the Appellant, I am of the considered view that Appellant duly discharged its burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. It is further seen that no notice