M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

section 145 (2) could not be invoked Ground of Appeal No. 3 & 3.1: M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. Not pressed Ground of Appeal No. 4: In this ground of appeal, assessee challenged the action of ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 11,709/- on account of TDS

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

section 145 (2) could not be invoked Ground of Appeal No. 3 & 3.1: M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. Not pressed Ground of Appeal No. 4: In this ground of appeal, assessee challenged the action of ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 11,709/- on account of TDS

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the disallowance made by Ld. AO by ignoring the submission of the assessee that none of the statutory liabilities i.e. ESI, PF, VAT, TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the disallowance made by Ld. AO by ignoring the submission of the assessee that none of the statutory liabilities i.e. ESI, PF, VAT, TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the disallowance made by Ld. AO by ignoring the submission of the assessee that none of the statutory liabilities i.e. ESI, PF, VAT, TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted

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

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 ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of the assessee’s books of accounts and invoking the provisions provided u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act”). However

DYNAMIC ENGINEERS INFRATEC PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA, CIRCLE-2 KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Cit (A). 2. That The Appellant Craves To Add, Delete, Alter & Amend Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 145(3) of the Act. 2. We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R and considered the relevant material on record. The AO has pointed out various defects during the course of 3 ITA No. 871, 859 & 860/JP/2019. M/s. Dynamic Engineers Infratrack Pvt. Ltd., Kota. scrutiny assessment which are enumerated in para 3 at page

DYNAMIC ENGINEERS INFRATEC PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, CIRCLE-1 KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Cit (A). 2. That The Appellant Craves To Add, Delete, Alter & Amend Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 145(3) of the Act. 2. We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R and considered the relevant material on record. The AO has pointed out various defects during the course of 3 ITA No. 871, 859 & 860/JP/2019. M/s. Dynamic Engineers Infratrack Pvt. Ltd., Kota. scrutiny assessment which are enumerated in para 3 at page

DYNAMIC ENGINEERS INFRATEC PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, CIRCLE-1 KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Cit (A). 2. That The Appellant Craves To Add, Delete, Alter & Amend Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 145(3) of the Act. 2. We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R and considered the relevant material on record. The AO has pointed out various defects during the course of 3 ITA No. 871, 859 & 860/JP/2019. M/s. Dynamic Engineers Infratrack Pvt. Ltd., Kota. scrutiny assessment which are enumerated in para 3 at page

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)

145(3) of the Act,1961. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of AO in confirming the disallowance of Rs.30,35,538/- being 10% of the amount of Rs. 3,03,53,582/- claimed as application of income. 3. First of all, we take up the appeal

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

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

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

GIRDHARI LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

145(3) and has made GP addition @ 0.50% without any basis. That sale price of petrol/diesel are fixed by HPCL and there is no control over those prices and on which fixed percentage of commission are given to dealer by HPCL. That to maintain fixed/permanent customers discount in form of lowering of sale price are required to be given

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)

145(3). The rejection was mechanical and arbitrary without proper application of mind. 2. The ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the arbitrary estimation of income at 8% of turnover and making addition of Rs. 91,05,708/- without considering the nature of infrastructure and road construction business which involves low profit margins. No comparable