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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144 of the Act and therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) is in violation of section 251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

TDS deducted. Total 6,26,000/- These persons are not specified persons u/s 13(2) of the Act and the advance given is also not investment/deposits referred to u/s 11(5) and thus there is no violation of section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d) of the Act. 5. The decisions relied by the AO are not applicable

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

TDS within the prescribed time\nto the Central Government. Further, the assessment in this case has been completed\nex-parte under Section 144

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2 NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub- section (1) has been increased or reduced

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

TDS within the prescribed time\nto the Central Government. Further, the assessment in this case has been completed\nex-parte under Section 144

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144 (best judgment assessment) based on available records. A motor vehicle purchase of Rs. 35,46,667. Commission/brokerage receipts amounting to Rs. 31,17,181 during F.Y. 2012-13. A letter under Section 133(6) was issued to Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd., from which the vehicle was purchased. Bird Automotive confirmed the sale of the car to the assessee, providing

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BHIWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

144 (best judgment assessment) based on available\nrecords. A motor vehicle purchase of Rs.35,46,667. Commission/brokerage\nreceipts amounting to Rs.31,17,181 during F.Y. 2012-13. A letter under Section\n133(6) was issued to Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd., from which the vehicle was\npurchased. Bird Automotive confirmed the sale of the car to the assessee,\nproviding details

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

section 2(24)(x) of the Act. However, the assessee has itself disallowed only Rs 42,14,588/- in its computation. Thus the remaining amount Rs 2,59,71,570/- should have been disallowed by the AO. (ii) It is seen that in clause 34(a) of the audit report form 3CD the auditors have reported that the assessee

CREATIVE REALMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

144 r.w.s. 147 of IT Act.\n2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts & law in confirming the\naddition of Rs. 1,38,00,000/- u/s 68 of the act by treating the loan\nraised from following parties as unexplained:- (a) Icharaj Retails Pvt.\nLtd. – Rs. 15,00,000/- (b)- Icharaj Vinimay

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS or otherwise, was not an allowable expenditure - Held, yes [Paras 24 and 25] [In favour of revenue]" Similar observations were made by the Banglore bench of ITAT. Hon'ble ITAT held in the case of [2022] 144 taxmann.com 2 (Bangalore - Trib.) Enzen Global Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer as under- "III. Section

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 44AD of IT Act, then no addition on account of\npayment through credit card can be made.\nFacts & Submission:-\n1.\nDuring the year under consideration assessee entered into a contract with\nQFS Consultancy Private Limited to provide infrastructure support services. Total\nconsideration received by the assessee is Rs.13,90,000/- on which TDS of\nRs.21,850/- has been deducted

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

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

144 and Section 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Department in the respective appeals are as under:- DCIT (INTL. TAX), JAIPUR VS SHRI DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR ‘’I. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting

DCIT,INT.TAX, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

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

144 and Section 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Department in the respective appeals are as under:- DCIT (INTL. TAX), JAIPUR VS SHRI DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR ‘’I. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting

MAHAVEER OIL DISTRIBUTORS,SHAHPURA JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD BEHROR, BEHROR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ for short AO]. 2 Mahaveer Oil Distributors vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “Ground 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law, Ld AO erred in taking action

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

TDS reconciliation) and did not indicate unreliability of accounts.The Statutory Auditor has given unmodified opined in the Audit reportfor the same year that Financial Statement of the assessee give a true and fair view in conformity with the accounting principles generally accepted in India (PB 169).  Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) failed to point out any specific instance

LODHA FOUNDATION, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

144. (1) If any person— (a) fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued

LODHA FOUNDATION, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

144. (1) If any person— (a) fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued

KAIZEN ENTREPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT-DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

144. (1) If any person— (a) fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. KAIZEN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

144. (1) If any person— (a) fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued