282) in its
return of income for the year under consideration. In the assessment
order, besides the above addition of Rs. 1,33,27,282 ... documents or to check or verify any cash, stock or other valuable
article or thing or to furnish any information or to have his statements
282 following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Ayodhya :
that the preparation of food articles
RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 281 & 282/JPR/2024
Poswal Grandiose Foundation cuke CIT(E),
13-A, Viman Vihar ... 282/JPR/2024
Poswal Grandiose Foundation vs. CIT(E)
2.1 In ITA No. 282/JPR/2024 the assessee has raised following grounds
RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 281 & 282/JPR/2024
Poswal Grandiose Foundation cuke CIT(E),
13-A, Viman Vihar ... 282/JPR/2024
Poswal Grandiose Foundation vs. CIT(E)
2.1 In ITA No. 282/JPR/2024 the assessee has raised following grounds
Renu Agarwal, Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur on 14 February, 2017
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj
Dcit, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur on 12 October, 2021
Rajeev Enterprises vs Assessing Officer on 29 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2003)78TTJ(JP)330
Smt. Birma Devi, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur on 12 April
Harish Jain, Jaipur vs Pcit (Central), Jaipur on 25 November, 2022
vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj
M/S Agencies Rajasthan Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur on
