Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v. Inspecting ACIT

KAILASH CHAND MEENA,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

…Thus how the ld. AO can make the addition of alleged unexplained income and also cannot invoke the provisions of Sec. 69A and 115BBE. Hence the entire additions are liable to be deleted. in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon v/s ITO 96 ITR 148(Ker). Thusit is the settled law that no addition can be made without issuing the show cause notice or without confronting to the assessee. 1.6 In the case of Shreyas Builders &Anr. vs. M.d.Kodnani&ors.* (2000) 161 CTR 0527 : (2000) 242 ITR 0320 it has been held that A…

MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…l rate of tax, if the addition if any\nsustained. As evident from the assessment order that the learned AO has failed to do so,\nwhich is against the principals of natural justice and against the law refer -Sanghi\nBrothers (Indore) Limited Vs Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging Vs\nCIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon Vs ITO 96 ITR 148 (Ker). The assessee also relies\nupon the judgment of Hon'ble Coordinate Jodhpur ITAT Bench, Jodhpur ITA No.\n50/Jodh/2021 consisting Hon'ble Vice President Shri N.K. Saini and Hon'ble Judicial\nMember Shri Sandeep Gosain. The Hon'ble Bench held that “ the AO has not is…

SITARAM BADRI NARAIN MAWAWALE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…which is against the principal of natural justice and against the law. Thus, how the learned AO can taxed the income under u/s 115BBE. Hence, the entire addition is liable to be deleted in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Limited Vs Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging Vs CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon Vs ITO 96 ITR 148 (Ker). The submissions of the assessee are also drawing support from the Hon’ble Coordinate Jodhpur ITAT Bench, Jodhpur ITA No. 50/Jodh/2021 consisting Hon’ble Vice President Shri N.K. Saini and Hon’ble Judicial Member Shri Sandeep Gosain. The Hon’ble Bench held that “ t…

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] 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;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 77/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Kath Brothers ACIT, Vs. Dausa Road, VPO-Toonga Central Circle-03, Tehsil-Bassi, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANFK3974G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…which is against the principal of natural justice and against the law. Thus, how the learned AO can taxed the income under u/s 115BBE. Hence, the entire addition is liable to be deleted in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Limited Vs Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging Vs CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon Vs ITO 96 ITR 148 (Ker). 3(iv) The submissions of the assessee are also drawing support from the Hon’ble Coordinate Jodhpur ITAT Bench, Jodhpur ITA No. 50/Jodh/2021 consisting Hon’ble Vice President Shri N.K. Saini and Hon’ble Judicial Member Shri Sandeep Gosain. The Hon’ble Bench held th…

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

…s how the ld. AO can make the addition of alleged unexplained cash of Rs.40,02,000/- and also cannot invoke the provisions of 115BBE. Hence the entire additions are liable to be deleted. in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon v/s ITO 96 ITR 148(Ker). 1.3 Thus it is the settled law that no addition can be made without issuing the show cause notice or without confronting to the assessee. 1.4 In the case of Shreyas Builders & Anr. vs. M.d. Kodnani & ors.* (2000) 161 CTR 0527 : (2000) 242 ITR 0320 it has been hel…

ARVIND KUMAR NEHRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

…do so, which is against the principal of natural justice and against the law. Thus how the ld. AO can tax the income under u/s 115BBE. Hence, the entire addition is liable to be deleted in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon v/s ITO 96 ITR 148(Ker). 2.2 This sec. 115BBE is charging of tax at the higher rate and it cannot be applied directly without giving any show cause notice when the issues are disputed that whether the higher rate of taxes applicable or not on the alleged income or the nature of income fa…

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

…AO can make the addition of alleged undisclosed receipts of Rs.1,45,71,616/- for 841 receipts and other additions and disallowances. Hence the entire additions are liable to be deleted. in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon v/s ITO 96 ITR 148(Ker).” 2.4 On the other hand the Ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) 2.5 We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record. As the Assessing officer has made the addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- u/s 68 by invoking the pr…

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

…can make the addition of alleged undisclosed receipts of Rs.1,78,8,630/- and also cannot invoke the provisions of Sec. 68 and 115BBE. Hence the entire additions are liable to be deleted. in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon v/s ITO 96 ITR 148(Ker). 1.3 Thus it is the settled law that no addition can be made without issuing the show cause notice or without confronting to the assessee. 21 Rukmani Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 1.4 In the case of Shreyas Builders & Anr. vs. M.d. Kodnani & ors.* (2000) 161 CTR…

SMT. RUKSANA,JHALAWAR vs. ITO, WARD, JHALAWAR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 192/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/H Of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Bjeps 1293 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kota Dated 21/09/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Dated 15.03.2014 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Being Debatable Issue & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2.1 Rs.13,45,442/-: The Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3). The Provision So Invoked By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

…ner as proposed by the Assessing Officer but in the instant case no such type of opportunity had been provided hence the addition so made may kindly be deleted in full. He relied on the decisions in cases of Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP) Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR (All), T.C.N. Menon v/s ITO 96 ITR 148(Ker). CIT vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapar ltd. (2015) 93 CCH 0070 Del HC CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P) LTD.* (2011) 238 CTR 0402 : (2011) 51 DTR 0074 : (2011) 333 ITR 0119 : 3. Thus in the above matter there is only point that sales made to M/s KOC Fruit Company Delhi and to o…

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

…is determined in the manner as proposed by the assesseeing officer but in the instant case no such type of opportunity had been provided hence the addition so made may kindly be deleted in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR (All), T.C.N. Menon v/s ITO 96 ITR 148(Ker). Sir, the appellant had complied with all of the provisions related to deduction and deposit of TDS and filing of returns etc. except in some cases, where there was delay in deposit of TDS and he duly deposited the interest on such delays. The Ld AO did not accepted…