(i) Andman Timber Industries v. CCE (

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NIRANJAN PATIDAR, NEEMUCH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…ismissed revenue's\nappeal - High Court affirmed judgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal\nbeing concurrent factual findings - Whether no substantial question of law arose\nfrom impugned order of Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]\n(403 ITR 183)Sunita Dhadda, order dt 28.03.2018 SLP (SC)\nThe ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon'ble ITAT,\nJaipur Bench as below was upheld:\n“Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN\nJi.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated July\n31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

…ismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed\njudgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual\nfindings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order\nof Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]\n(403 ITR 183)SunitaDhadda, order dt 28.03.2018 SLP (SC)\nThe ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon'ble ITAT,\nJaipur Bench as below was upheld:\n\"Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL\nNARIMAN Ji.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against\njudgment dated July 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan…

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…High Court affirmed judgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual findings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order of Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee] 25 Sh. Kapil Taneja vs. DCIT (403 ITR 183) Sunita Dhadda, order dt 28.03.2018 SLP (SC) The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench as below was upheld: “Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN Ji.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated July 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan Hig…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

…ismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed\njudgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual\nfindings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order\nof Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]\n(403 ITR 183)SunitaDhadda, order dt 28.03.2018 SLP (SC)\nThe ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon'ble ITAT,\nJaipur Bench as below was upheld:\n\"Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN\nJi.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated\nJuly 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

…ismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed\njudgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual\nfindings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order\nof Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]\n(403 ITR 183)SunitaDhadda, order dt 28.03.2018 SLP (SC)\nThe ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon'ble ITAT,\nJaipur Bench as below was upheld:\n\"Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN\nJi.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated\nJuly 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

…ismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed\njudgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual\nfindings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order\nof Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]\n(403 ITR 183)SunitaDhadda, order dt 28.03.2018 SLP (SC)\nThe ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon'ble ITAT,\nJaipur Bench as below was upheld:\n\"Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN\nJi.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated\nJuly 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

…ismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed\njudgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual\nfindings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order\nof Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]\n(403 ITR 183)SunitaDhadda, order dt 28.03.2018 SLP (SC)\nThe ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon'ble ITAT,\nJaipur Bench as below was upheld:\n\"Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN\nJi.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated\nJuly 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

…ismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed\njudgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual\nfindings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order\nof Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]\n(403 ITR 183)SunitaDhadda, order dt 28.03.2018 SLP (SC)\nThe ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon'ble ITAT,\nJaipur Bench as below was upheld:\n\"Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN\nJi.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated\nJuly 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan…

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

…the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected” 1.13 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Dhadda, vide its order dated 28.03.2018, in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (403 ITR 183) upheld the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench as below - “Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN Ji.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated July 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.-B,L_TA. No. 197 of 2012 whereby t…

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

…the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected” 1.13 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Dhadda, vide its order dated 28.03.2018, in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (403 ITR 183) upheld the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench as below - “Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN Ji.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated July 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.-B,L_TA. No. 197 of 2012 whereby t…

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

…order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to\nviolation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected”\n\n1.13 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Dhadda, vide its order dated 28.03.2018, in\nSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (403 ITR 183) upheld the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan\nHigh Court and also Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench as below -\n\n“Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN Ji.- dismissed the\nDepartment's special leave petition against judgment dated July 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of\nthe Rajasthan High Court in D.-B,L_TA. No. 197 of 2012 whe…

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

…the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected” 1.13 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Dhadda, vide its order dated 28.03.2018, in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (403 ITR 183) upheld the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench as below - “Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN Ji.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated July 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.-B,L_TA. No. 197 of 2012 whereby…

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

…e order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to\nviolation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected”\n1.13 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Dhadda, vide its order dated 28.03.2018, in\nSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (403 ITR 183) upheld the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan\nHigh Court and also Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench as below -\n“Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN Ji.- dismissed the\nDepartment's special leave petition against judgment dated July 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of\nthe Rajasthan High Court in D.-B,L_TA. No. 197 of 2012 where…

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

…e order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to\nviolation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected”\n1.13 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Dhadda, vide its order dated 28.03.2018, in\nSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (403 ITR 183) upheld the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan\nHigh Court and also Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench as below -\n“Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN Ji.- dismissed the\nDepartment's special leave petition against judgment dated July 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of\nthe Rajasthan High Court in D.-B,L_TA. No. 197 of 2012 where…

TARA SONI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

…ssee is not provided opportunity of Cross Examination: - PCIT vs Parasben Kasturchand Kochar [2021] 130 taxmann.com 177 (SC) - CIT vs Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd [2019] 110 taxmann.com 64 (SC) - Sunita Dhadda, order dated 28.03.2018, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (403 ITR 183) - Andaman Timber Industries (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4228 OF 2006) d. It is submitted that the court cannot turn blind eye to the evidences unless proved wrong and decide on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Krishna Devi [2021] 126 taxmann.com 80 (Delhi)wh…

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.276/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke Shri Ashnuth Goyal The ACIT 141, Vidyut Nagar-A, Prince Road Vs. Ward 1(3) Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEYPG 6337 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of He…

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.275/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke Shri Arnav Goyal The ITO 141, Vidyut Nagar-A, Prince Road , Vs. Ward 2(4) Ajmer Road,Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ARBPG 7921 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena,Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh r…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

…mmissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual findings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order of Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee] 6.3 Sunita Dhadda, order dated 28.03.2018, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (403 ITR 183) The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench as below was upheld: “Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN Ji.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated July 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.-B,L_TA. No. 197 of 2012 whereb…

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

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

…, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR wherein third person statements recorded behind a person cannot be used without allowing cross examination for which the ld. AR relied on following decisions. (i) Andman Timber Industries vs CCE (127 DTR 241-SC) (ii) CIT vs Sunita Dhaddha (403 ITR 183- SC) He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Maverick Share Brokers Pvt Ltd. (ITA No. 14/2016 dated 23-03-2017). The ld. AR further submitted that ld. CIT(A) followed the judgement in the case of State of Jammu Kashmir vs Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed (1967) AIR 122 (SC)in his order which is wrongly applied t…

ACIT, C.C. -4, JAIPUR vs. MAVERICK COMMODITY BROKERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…mmissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual findings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order of Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee] 7.3 Sunita Dhadda, order dated 28.03.2018, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (403 ITR 183) The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench as below was upheld: “Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN Ji.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated July 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.-B,L_TA. No. 197 of 2012 whereb…