CIT v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports

324 ITR 95High Court2010#2750 most cited

What is CIT v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports authority for?

Non-response to Section 133(6) notices or the assessee's inability to compel third parties to reply cannot be the sole or sufficient ground for rejecting books of account under Section 145(3).

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports · 324 ITR 95 · rejection of books of account · Section 145(3) · Section 133(6) · non-response to notices · failure to produce third parties · grounds for rejection of books · assessment procedure · Delhi High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 144BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 37Section 115BBESection 132Section 133(6)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

rejection of books of accountsection 145(3)mercantile system of accountingsection 145section 260section 260acommercial expediencysection 30section 127profits and gains of business or professionsection 133(6)section 133

Judgments citing CIT v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…this regard seeks to place reliance upon following judicial pronouncements: i) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays ii) ITA No. 999/2010 (Del) dated 03.08.2010 CIT vs. M/s Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd. iii) 326 ITR 223 (Del) CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani iv) 324 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports v) ITA No. 796/2011 (Del) dated 3.05.2012 CIT vs. Winner Constructions (P) Ltd.) vi) 372 ITR 381 (Del) CIT v. Zohra Emporium VI) vii) 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas viii) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. ix) 64 DTR 409 (Jai) Asstt. CIT vs. Shankar Exports x) ITA No. 165…

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 694 & 695/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 cuke Radhakishan Beniwal DCIT Vs. Ward No. 14, Behind Kishan Hostel Cirecle-01, Krishim Mandi Road, Nagarpalika Jaipur Degana Goredi Chancha Nagaur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AGMPB3851A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by :…

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 694 & 695/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 cuke Radhakishan Beniwal DCIT Vs. Ward No. 14, Behind Kishan Hostel Cirecle-01, Krishim Mandi Road, Nagarpalika Jaipur Degana Goredi Chancha Nagaur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AGMPB3851A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by :…

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 543/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke M/s Kanak Vrindavan Resorts ITO, Vs. Limited Ward 6(2), 4th Floor-123, Jan Path, Shyam Jaipur Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACK8480D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA…

R. K. WINES,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 4, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 301/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2022-23
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250

…h purchases the subsequent\nsale of liquor could not have been effected.\nThe appellant submits that non responding by some parties to notice us\n133(6) cannot be a ground to reject book results u/s 145(3) Reliance\nplaced on CIT-vs-Jas Jack Elegance Exports, 324 ITR 95 (Delhi)\n(2010)\n3.3 During assessment proceedings, the Id AO requested for details of\ndirect and indirect expenses. The appellant vide letter dt 05/02/2024,\nsubmitted the monthly breakup of such expenses alongwith brief\nexplanation about the nature of expenses. However, due to technical\nlimitation on uploading copies of large number of docume…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

ITA 499/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…during the course of the assessment proceedings and moreover, the said details have been accepted by the Ld. AO. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgments:- a). CIT vs. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Del HC) b). CIT vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 (Del HC) c) Ashoke Refractories (P) Ltd. v. CIT 279 ITR 457 (Cal HC) d) Neeraj jain vs. ITO 33 CCH 436 (Del Trib) e). Teletronics Dealing Systems (P) Ltd. vs. Additional CIT 31 CCH 037 (Mum Trib) f). ACIT vs. Ramesh Kumar Siwach in ITA No. 3269/Der/2013 499-Chd-2023 & C.O.09-Chd-2024 Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana 32 g) [2016] 73 taxmann.co…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHIV NARESH SPORTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 5538/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri S. B. Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, [CIT] - D. R
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…ce in the order.Even otherwise, failure of the assessee to produce creditors, job workers or any other party cannot be a ground for rejecting books of accounts as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports (2010) 324 ITR 95. • With respect to non-service of notice u/s 133(6) upon 5 parties, assessee submitted that 1 party had submitted its response and notice was thus in fact served upon it. The notice to 2nd party was incorrectly addressed by AO. The assessee provided new address of the remaining 3 parties. • Further, with regard to 4 parties upon whom notice u…

SHEETAL CLOTHING CO PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1109/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…the assessee have been audited both under the Companies Act & Income tax Act and the auditors have not pointed out any discrepancy. The Ld A.R also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports (324 ITR 95)(Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- “5. Section 145(3) of Act provides for assessment in the manner prescribed in Section 144 of the Act, where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee or where either the method of accounting provided in sub-Section…

SHEETAL CLOTHING CO PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1108/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…the assessee have been audited both under the Companies Act & Income tax Act and the auditors have not pointed out any discrepancy. The Ld A.R also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports (324 ITR 95)(Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- “5. Section 145(3) of Act provides for assessment in the manner prescribed in Section 144 of the Act, where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee or where either the method of accounting provided in sub-Section…

ACIT 29 (3), MUMBAI vs. ZEEMAG INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2266/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250

…What is material for the purpose of Sec. 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is the method should be such that the real income, profits and gains can be properly deducted therefrom.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s Jas Jack Elegance Exports (2010) 324 ITR 95 (Del.) held that if the accounts are not defective, book results cannot be rejected merely because there is fall in gross profits. It is seen in the instant appeal that the Survey party had valued the Work in Progress at the Sale Value. The Sale Value definitely includes the profit. Hence again excluding the declaration and estimating the gross pr…

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 901/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 145(3)Section 40

…und in accounts- Absence of stock register alone not a ground to infer that accounts inaccurate or incorrect-Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal accepting explanation of assessee for fall in gross profit-Finding of fact- Income-tax Act, 1961 s. 145(3). 324 ITR 95 (Delhi) CIT Vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports:- Accounting- rejection of Accounts- Fall in Gross profit- Finding that accounts not defective- Explanation given by Assessee accepted by Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal and addition deleted- Finding of Fact- Income Tx Act, 1961 s.145(3). Thus in the circumstances, it is submitted that appellant…

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 900/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 145(3)Section 40

…und in accounts- Absence of stock register alone not a ground to infer that accounts inaccurate or incorrect-Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal accepting explanation of assessee for fall in gross profit-Finding of fact- Income-tax Act, 1961 s. 145(3). 324 ITR 95 (Delhi) CIT Vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports:- Accounting- rejection of Accounts- Fall in Gross profit- Finding that accounts not defective- Explanation given by Assessee accepted by Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal and addition deleted- Finding of Fact- Income Tx Act, 1961 s.145(3). Thus in the circumstances, it is submitted that appellant…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Teresa’s Oil Mills Vs State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker) Accounts regularly maintained in the course of business have to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reason to indicate that they are unreliable. e) CIT Vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 (Delhi) :- Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Sec. 145(3) provides for assessment in the manner prescribed in s. 144, where the AO is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee or where either the method of accounting provided in sub-s. (1) or the Accounting Standards as notified under sub-s. (2) have not b…

RAKESH VAID,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…me Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in our view, were justified in holding that the Assessing Officer could not have increased the gross profit ratio merely because it was low as compared to the gross profit ratio of the preceding year. g) 324 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports h) ITA No. 796/2011 (Del) dated 3.05.2012 CIT vs. Winner Constructions (P) Ltd. i) 316 ITR 120 (Raj) Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. ACIT” 5. On the contrary learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that the assessment is validly reopened. The assessee…

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 234B

…) • S.N. Namasivayam Chettial Vs. CIT 38 ITR 579 (SC) • CIT Vs. Paradise Holdiays 325 ITR 13 (Del) • CIT Vs. M/s Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 999/2010 dated 03.08.2010 • CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Del) • CIT Vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 • ITO Vs. Somsons & Co., 148 Taxman 21 (Asr) (Mag) • Pandit Bors. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 159 (Punj) • S. Veeriah Reddiar Vs. CIT 38 ITR 152 (Ker) • P. Venkanna Vs. CIT 72 ITR 328 (Mys) • R.V.S. and Sons Dairy Farm Vs. CIT 257 ITR 764 (Mad) • CIT Vs. Superior Crafts in ITA No. 244/2009, 547/2011, 548/2011 and 615/2011(Del) dt. 06/03/2012 • CIT Vs. Jacksons…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1162/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…tutorily audited and audit report has no qualification. Unless such a specific finding is given invoking of section 145 (3) and rejection of books of accounts is wrong and bad in law. The legal position is supported from many judicial decisions such as (2010) 324 ITR 95 Jas Jack Elegance Exports (Delhi HC). The judgements relied by A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the case as they relate to different facts and issue which are quoted without reference or context. 15. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decision…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1161/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…tutorily audited and audit report has no qualification. Unless such a specific finding is given invoking of section 145 (3) and rejection of books of accounts is wrong and bad in law. The legal position is supported from many judicial decisions such as (2010) 324 ITR 95 Jas Jack Elegance Exports (Delhi HC). The judgements relied by A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the case as they relate to different facts and issue which are quoted without reference or context. 15. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decision…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1160/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…tutorily audited and audit report has no qualification. Unless such a specific finding is given invoking of section 145 (3) and rejection of books of accounts is wrong and bad in law. The legal position is supported from many judicial decisions such as (2010) 324 ITR 95 Jas Jack Elegance Exports (Delhi HC). The judgements relied by A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the case as they relate to different facts and issue which are quoted without reference or context. 15. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decision…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1159/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…tutorily audited and audit report has no qualification. Unless such a specific finding is given invoking of section 145 (3) and rejection of books of accounts is wrong and bad in law. The legal position is supported from many judicial decisions such as (2010) 324 ITR 95 Jas Jack Elegance Exports (Delhi HC). The judgements relied by A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the case as they relate to different facts and issue which are quoted without reference or context. 15. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decision…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1158/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…tutorily audited and audit report has no qualification. Unless such a specific finding is given invoking of section 145 (3) and rejection of books of accounts is wrong and bad in law. The legal position is supported from many judicial decisions such as (2010) 324 ITR 95 Jas Jack Elegance Exports (Delhi HC). The judgements relied by A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the case as they relate to different facts and issue which are quoted without reference or context. 15. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decision…

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3