WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

124 (Punjab &\nHaryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 358 (Punjab & Haryana) [13-09-2010] examined\nthis issue. Head notes of this decision are as under-\n\n\"Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment\nGeneral -Assessment year 2001-02 In reassessment, Assessing Officer can\nmake addition even on ground on which reassessment notice might not have\nbeen issued

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA(3

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

124 of the Act and the notification issued by the Board. 20. Thus, in our opinion, the appeal has to succeed on ground nos. 1 and 2 alone. The appeal accordingly stands allowed as aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/01/2024.” In the matter of Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India

KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: or at the time of hearing of

124/- on the Wind Mill income and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) at Rs.6,52,17,770/- after making trading addition of Rs.3,80,85,480/- by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against this order passed by ld.AO, assessee decided to file an appeal before CIT(A) wherein

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

3), Kolkata that they are Directors in the various companies which is controlled & managed by Mr. Anjani Banka. Statement of Mr. Anjani Banka was also recorded by the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-2(3), Kolkata on 29.03.2014 wherein he accepted that he is engaged in providing accommodation entries in form of share capital, unsecured loan, LTCG etc and to facilitate

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

3, under the facts and\ncircumstances of the case, the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) has grossly erred in passing\nthe assessment order dated 20.11.2018 under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961, during the pendency of SLP No. 16734/2023 before the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court and the subsisting stay order dated 28.08.2023. The stay order\nexplicitly

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS) JP (2017) 87 taxmann.com 184 (Rajasthan) and CIT Vs Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192(SC) – The Hon’ble Court held that if, two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. (b)Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs CIT, Dhanbad (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand) (c) CIT, Karnataka Vs Shri Ramdas Motor Transport

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 1.17 From the facts on record (PB 22-27), it is crystal that the order was passed by AO after full enquiries and therefore, the case is not falling within clause (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 263. In view of the above factual

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

3,20,660/- (as per page 40 of SCN, i.e. (Common paper book Volume I Part I page 40) which have also been treated by Ld. AO as unaccounted sales without verifying both these details from the books of accounts. In this regard, it is submitted that the three bills seized as per page 15, 17 & 18 of Exhibit

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

3,20,660/- (as per page 40 of SCN, i.e. (Common paper book Volume I Part I page 40) which have also been treated by Ld. AO as unaccounted sales without verifying both these details from the books of accounts. In this regard, it is submitted that the three bills seized as per page 15, 17 & 18 of Exhibit

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

3,20,660/- (as per page 40 of SCN, i.e. (Common paper book Volume I Part I page 40) which have also been treated by Ld. AO as unaccounted sales without verifying both these details from the books of accounts. In this regard, it is submitted that the three bills seized as per page 15, 17 & 18 of Exhibit

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

3,20,660/- (as per page 40 of SCN, i.e. (Common paper book Volume I Part I page 40) which have also been treated by Ld. AO as unaccounted sales without verifying both these details from the books of accounts. In this regard, it is submitted that the three bills seized as per page 15, 17 & 18 of Exhibit

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

3,20,660/- (as per page 40 of SCN, i.e. (Common paper book Volume I Part I page 40) which have also been treated by Ld. AO as unaccounted sales without verifying both these details from the books of accounts. In this regard, it is submitted that the three bills seized as per page 15, 17 & 18 of Exhibit

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

3,20,660/- (as per page 40 of SCN, i.e. (Common paper book Volume I Part I page 40) which have also been treated by Ld. AO as unaccounted sales without verifying both these details from the books of accounts. In this regard, it is submitted that the three bills seized as per page 15, 17 & 18 of Exhibit

APOORVA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

section 124(3) are clearly attracted in the instant case. 6. It was further submitted by the ld DR that the AO was in receipt of information that assessee was in receipt of income on which TDS

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

TDS) JP. (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan, Commissioner of\nIncome Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that\nif two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred.\nReliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax VI KY\nPillah & Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

TDS. The assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company which is engaged in the business of providing small loans, vehicle loans, small and medium enterprises loans in rural and semi-urban areas, issuing debentures etc. It is noted from the assessment order that due to change of incumbent, notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaire was issued

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS return Form 26Q for all four quarters 188-241 Further evidence 14. Ledger account of the parties for the subsequent period showing 242-343 repayment of the unsecured loan 15. Corresponding relevant extract of bank statements showing repayment 344-383 • Case laws relied upon: 27 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT S. No. Particulars Page No. Case Laws: A. When