CIT v. Pratap Singh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…e\nsame as deemed income under s.69C of the I.T. Act. When the books of\naccount have been maintained and expenditure recorded with full details and\nsupported by vouchers, then no addition can be made under S. 69C vide CIT\nVs. Pratap Singh Amar Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Rajasthan). Under the\ncircumstances, the addition made under s.69C cannot be sustained and is\nhereby deleted.\n• PCIT v. Param Dairy Ltd. (ITA 50/2022)\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the total purchases including Milk\nTanki purchases have been debited to the profit and loss account and the entire\nsource of purchases are duly rec…

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

…the same as deemed income under s. 69C of the I.T. Act. When the books of account have been maintained and expenditure recorded with full details and supported by vouchers, then no addition can be made under S. 69C vide CIT Vs. Pratap Singh Amar Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Rajasthan). Under the circumstances, the addition made under s. 69C cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted.  PCIT v. Param Dairy Ltd. (ITA 50/2022) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the total purchases including Milk Tanki purchases have been debited to the profit and loss account and the entire source of purchases are duly recorded…

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…e\nsame as deemed income under s.69C of the I.T. Act. When the books of\naccount have been maintained and expenditure recorded with full details and\nsupported by vouchers, then no addition can be made under S. 69C vide CIT\nVs. Pratap Singh Amar Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Rajasthan). Under the\ncircumstances, the addition made under s.69C cannot be sustained and is\nhereby deleted.\n• PCIT v. Param Dairy Ltd. (ITA 50/2022)\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the total purchases including Milk\nTanki purchases have been debited to the profit and loss account and the entire\nsource of purchases are duly rec…

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

…the same as deemed income under s. 69C of the I.T. Act. When the books of account have been maintained and expenditure recorded with full details and supported by vouchers, then no addition can be made under S. 69C vide CIT Vs. Pratap Singh Amar Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Rajasthan). Under the circumstances, the addition made under s. 69C cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted.  PCIT v. Param Dairy Ltd. (ITA 50/2022) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the total purchases including Milk Tanki purchases have been debited to the profit and loss account and the entire source of purchases are duly recorded…

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

…the same as deemed income under s. 69C of the I.T. Act. When the books of account have been maintained and expenditure recorded with full details and supported by vouchers, then no addition can be made under S. 69C vide CIT Vs. Pratap Singh Amar Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Rajasthan). Under the circumstances, the addition made under s. 69C cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted.  PCIT v. Param Dairy Ltd. (ITA 50/2022) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the total purchases including Milk Tanki purchases have been debited to the profit and loss account and the entire source of purchases are duly recorded…

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…e\nsame as deemed income under s.69C of the I.T. Act. When the books of\naccount have been maintained and expenditure recorded with full details and\nsupported by vouchers, then no addition can be made under S. 69C vide CIT\nVs. Pratap Singh Amar Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Rajasthan). Under the\ncircumstances, the addition made under s.69C cannot be sustained and is\nhereby deleted.\n• PCIT v. Param Dairy Ltd. (ITA 50/2022)\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the total purchases including Milk\nTanki purchases have been debited to the profit and loss account and the entire\nsource of purchases are duly rec…

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…e\nsame as deemed income under s.69C of the I.T. Act. When the books of\naccount have been maintained and expenditure recorded with full details and\nsupported by vouchers, then no addition can be made under S. 69C vide CIT\nVs. Pratap Singh Amar Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Rajasthan). Under the\ncircumstances, the addition made under s.69C cannot be sustained and is\nhereby deleted.\nPCIT v. Param Dairy Ltd. (ITA 50/2022)\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the total purchases including Milk\nTanki purchases have been debited to the profit and loss account and the entire\nsource of purchases are duly recor…

ANSHUL JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…e\nsame as deemed income under s.69C of the I.T. Act. When the books of\naccount have been maintained and expenditure recorded with full details and\nsupported by vouchers, then no addition can be made under S. 69C vide CIT\nVs. Pratap Singh Amar Singh (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Rajasthan). Under the\ncircumstances, the addition made under s.69C cannot be sustained and is\nhereby deleted.\n•\nPCIT v. Param Dairy Ltd. (ITA 50/2022)\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the total purchases including Milk\nTanki purchases have been debited to the profit and loss account and the entire\nsource of purchases are duly re…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

…185 ITR 158 (All.), Dinesh Kumar Mittal v. ITO [1992] 193 ITR 770 (Bom.), CIT v. Raja Narendra [1994] 210 ITR 250/74 Taxman 157 (Raj.), CIT v. Smt. Prem Kumari Surana [1994] 206 ITR 715 (Raj.), CIT v. Pratap Singh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh Deepak Kumar [1993] 200 ITR 788 (Raj.), CIT v. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 200 ITR 567/68 Taxman 344 (SC), CIT v. H.H. Maharao Bhim Singhji [1988]173 ITR 79/36 Taxman 270 (Raj.), Abdul Qayume v. CIT [1990] 184 ITR 404/50 Taxman 171 (All.), M.D. Jewellers v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 196/73 Taxman 493 (Raj.), CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), CIT v. Pradyuman Kumar Ka…

PRAKASH CHAND SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)JAIPUR, JAIPUR

…rove or establish whether such investment was actually made or not. Hence, such additions do not call for invocation of Sec. 69. Similar finding has also been given by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pratap Singh Amro Singh etc. (1993) 200 ITR 788 that addition on the basis of valuation are more or less on estimate basis. Such additions do not require applicability of Sec. 69, which requires a definite foundation. In the case of the assessee also, addition of Rs. 7,00,000 has been made by the Learned Assessing Officer on lump sum basis, i.e. purely on estimate basis. Such additions do not…

LAXMI NARAYAN SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

…rove or establish whether such investment was actually made or not. Hence, such additions do not call for invocation of Sec. 69. Similar finding has also been given by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pratap Singh Amro Singh etc. (1993) 200 ITR 788 that addition on the basis of valuation are more or less on estimate basis. Such additions do not require applicability of Sec. 69, which requires a definite foundation. In the case of the assessee also, addition of Rs. 7,00,000 has been made by the Learned Assessing Officer on lump sum basis, i.e. purely on estimate basis. Such additions do not…

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,SIKANDARA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

…rove or establish whether such investment was actually made or not. Hence, such additions do not call for invocation of Sec. 69. Similar finding has also been given by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pratap Singh Amro Singh etc. (1993) 200 ITR 788 that addition on the basis of valuation are more or less on estimate basis. Such additions do not require applicability of Sec. 69, which requires a definite foundation. In the case of the assessee also, addition of Rs. 7,00,000 has been made by the Learned Assessing Officer on lump sum basis, i.e. purely on estimate basis. Such additions do not…