PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,57,133/-. Penalty u/s 270A, u/s 271AAC. u/s 270A(9)(c), initiated\nseparately for misreporting/under reporting the facts as discussed above. Penalty\nu/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance of statutory notices. Penalty initiation for\nviolation of section 269SS & 269T of the IT Act. Levied tax and charged interest\nu/s 234 B & 234 C as per separate

GURJANT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the AO. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- 2 Shri Gurjant Singh vs. PCIT “1. That Ld. PCIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on facts in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act which

KANTA AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

68 on account of sale of shares claiming exempt LTCG under section 10(38), addition made on account of alleged commission u/s 69C and addition made under section 14A of the Act. 4. Before us, the ld. A/R for the assessee submitted as under : “ (i) Assessee is a regular investor in shares; The assessee is regularly dealing

KANTA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

68 on account of sale of shares claiming exempt LTCG under section 10(38), addition made on account of alleged commission u/s 69C and addition made under section 14A of the Act. 4. Before us, the ld. A/R for the assessee submitted as under : “ (i) Assessee is a regular investor in shares; The assessee is regularly dealing

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

3A) to allow the trusts to apply the accumulated income for payment or credit to other charitable or religious trusts and institutions. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2003 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2003-2004 and subsequent years.” Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur 45. It would also be relevant

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Thus, the AO has considered the information filed by the assessee and arrived at conclusion that no disallowance is warranted under section 14A of the Act. The view of the AO is duly supported by the decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunals relied upon by the assessee

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

3A(2) provides that when the assessment made under Section 153 (A) (1) is annulled, the assessment or reassessment that stood abated shall stand revived. 10. Thus on a plain reading of Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, it becomes clear that on initiation qfproceedings under Section 153A, it is only the assessment/ reassessment proceedings that

CARELEAVERS INNER CIRCLE FORUM,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

68 to 70 and any other applicable provision of the Act or any other law for the time being in force, the company may purchase its own shares or other specified securities." A buyback, also known as a share repurchase, is when a company buys its own outstanding shares to reduce the number of shares available on the open market

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

3A) and 143(3B) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 24/03/2021., by making addition of Rs.12,87,768/-, being provision for payment of gratuity disallowable u/s 40A(7). Copy of the assessment order is available on Paper Book Page No.1-3. Subsequently, proceedings u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 were initiated by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Jaipur

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

3A) & 143(3B) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 06.04.2021 for\nthe A.Y. 2018-19 of the AO of making an addition of Rs.4,43,36,980/-\non account of interest on enhanced land compensation. All these\ngrounds are taken up together for the sake of convenience.\nI have carefully considered the submissions made by the Appellant. It is\nobserved

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2 A3logics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. The ld. PCIT, Jaipur-1 erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in taking the action u/s 263 which

FATEHPURIA TRANSFORMERS AND SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68,315/. Assessment for the AY 2018-19 was completed u/s 143(3) Γ.พ.ร. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) on 08.04.2021 at total income of Rs. 88,34,150/- and Ld. AO allowed the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) as well as expenditure in the nature of Delay in delivery charges

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

68,89,419/- i.e\n40,33,412/- on account of construction expenses and added in total income of\nthe assessee. without considering the fact that it was never claimed by the\nassessee appellant.\n7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Ld. Lower\nAuthority grossly erred in confirming the disallowance

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

68,89,419/- i.e\n40,33,412/- on account of construction expenses and added in total income of\nthe assessee. without considering the fact that it was never claimed by the\nassessee appellant.\n7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Ld. Lower\nAuthority grossly erred in confirming the disallowance

INDIA COMMERCIAL SERVICES ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

3A) & 143(3B)\nof the Income Tax Act [ hereinafter referred to as “ the Act"].\n2.\nThe impugned order has been challenged raising following grounds\nof appeal:\n3.\n“1 Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur\nerred in passing the order u/s 263 of the IT Act 1961 which is void ab-initio

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68 justified. 3. Neelkantha Commosales Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 135 taxmann.com 326 (The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta) (2022) ITO was not precluded from enquiry for true nature and source of sum - as share application with high premium. Thus the appellant could not discharge the onus cast upon it. Under the facts, it is held that

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. D B DISTRIBUTORS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 05.04.2021. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) is justified ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to justify and verify documentary evidence to adduce

GA INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 22.02.2021. 2 GA Infra Private Limited 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. PCIT has erred in passing order dated 31.03.2023 by holding that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income