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

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

68,876/- u/s 14A. The action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the said disallowance made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).” 2. In Ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the reopening the assessment proceedings

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

32 of their order, holding that the AO has erred in taking status of the assessee as AOP disregarding the fact that each beneficiary has independently invested in RVCF-II without any association with any other beneficiary. We rely on the following decisions in favour of the assessee: A. DCI, Bangalorev.India Advantage Fund – VII (2014) (50 taxmann.com 350) (Case

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, be an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing or in the business of generation, transmission, or distribution of power, a further sum equal

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)

32,352) Book Profit as per section 115JB6,17,53,920 AO added provision for bad & doubtful debts/advances of Rs.15,85,10,128/- written back and depreciation of Rs.269,10,85,274/- to the book profit computed 20 M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. by the assessee by holding that deduction for provision for bad & doubtful debts/advances written

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 period of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded: “The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date

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

68. This decision has been arrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla, popularly known as the Jain Hawala Case. 1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that loose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

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

68. This decision has been arrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla, popularly known as the Jain Hawala Case. 1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that loose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

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

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

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