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)

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, as the case may be, the interest shall

SH. AMIT MANTRI,A-3-A, ANAJ MANDI, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS and issuing refund as against order u/s 143(1) dy. 12/08/2010 raising demand of Rs. 17,950/- cannot be entertained u/s 154(7) of the Act. 2 ITA 151/JP/2021 Sh. Amit Mantri Vs DCIT 2. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not considering the legal position that in the application filed

M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

154 of the Act. The same was rejected stating that the assessee has not correctly filled schedules in the return like BP/DEP/DOA/P&L/PART A-01 of the Income tax Return-ITR-4. Being aggrieved by the order of AO CPC, the assessee preferred appeal before NFAC Delhi but the same was rejected stating that assessee has not submitted any documentary

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

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

TDS). Therefore, the question is that if such declaration is not filed to the prescribed authority within the prescribed time, can the liability of TCS be fastened on the assessee. This issue has since been decided by the various Courts and Tribunal where it is held that even if the declaration is not furnished in time, no liability u/s 206C

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

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

TDS). Therefore, the question is that if such declaration is not filed to the prescribed authority within the prescribed time, can the liability of TCS be fastened on the assessee. This issue has since been decided by the various Courts and Tribunal where it is held that even if the declaration is not furnished in time, no liability u/s 206C

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

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

TDS). Therefore, the question is that if such declaration is not filed to the prescribed authority within the prescribed time, can the liability of TCS be fastened on the assessee. This issue has since been decided by the various Courts and Tribunal where it is held that even if the declaration is not furnished in time, no liability u/s 206C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 d) Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 e) Vikram Goyal Vs DCIT ITA 174/Jaipur/2017 etc. f) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL Vs ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) g) Prateek Kothari Vs ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015) 7.5 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the A.O. are without any reference to the seized material, they

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 d) Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 e) Vikram Goyal Vs DCIT ITA 174/Jaipur/2017 etc. f) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL Vs ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) g) Prateek Kothari Vs ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015) 7.5 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the A.O. are without any reference to the seized material, they

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 d) Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 e) Vikram Goyal Vs DCIT ITA 174/Jaipur/2017 etc. f) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL Vs ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) g) Prateek Kothari Vs ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015) 7.5 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the A.O. are without any reference to the seized material, they

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 d) Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 e) Vikram Goyal Vs DCIT ITA 174/Jaipur/2017 etc. f) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL Vs ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) g) Prateek Kothari Vs ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015) 7.5 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the A.O. are without any reference to the seized material, they

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 d) Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 e) Vikram Goyal Vs DCIT ITA 174/Jaipur/2017 etc. f) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL Vs ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) g) Prateek Kothari Vs ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015) 7.5 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the A.O. are without any reference to the seized material, they

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT]Amendment to\nsection 14A of the Act which is for removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be\nretrospective.\n• Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.\n(2022) 7 TMI 1093:Whether ITAT erred in relying on the decision of this Court in PCIT

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

154 on 21.05.2021.\nThus, Id. PCIT noted that the FAO didn't examine the issue of\nexpenditure of Rs.5,92,10,074/- related to Education-Cess of A.Y.\n2009-10 (supra), on the basis of order passed by High Court of\nRajasthan on 31.07.2018. The AO/NaFAC didn't disallow this\nexpenditure in view of explanation 3 to section

DCIT, CR-7, JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANIL GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

Section 37 of the IT Act. Firstly, The DRs contentions are that the documentary proof wgich was submitted by the AR in his paper book at page number 8 relates to the expenses on account of Rental Expenses paid. Secondly, the Ld DR is questioning the Ledger Account 5 profession promotion Expenses, where the asessee has TDS commission for (refer

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

TDS and self-assessment were Rs.39,94,450/-\nand reflected in Form 26AS. The return of income filed on 14.12.2021 at total\nincome of Rs.97,04,420/- was however, dismissed by the F.A.O., stating that “on\nperusal of departmental databse no trace of return was found on perusal of\ndepartmental database”.\n2. In the re-assessment order

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

TDS and self-assessment were Rs.39,94,450/-\nand reflected in Form 26AS. The return of income filed on 14.12.2021 at total\nincome of Rs.97,04,420/- was however, dismissed by the F.A.O., stating that “on\nperusal of departmental databse no trace of return was found on perusal of\ndepartmental database\".\n2. In the re-assessment order

MANISH KUMAR VIJAY,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 154 of the Act with AO CPC which was disposed of on 20.10.2020. 3 Manish Kumar Vijay vs. ITO 4. Against that order of the ld. AO CPC the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: 6. However

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

154 (Kolkata Trib.) Issue:-There were four issues to verify (i) Interest Expenses (ii) Income from real Estate Business (iii) Sales Turnover Mismatch, and (iv) other expenses claimed in the P&L account Order passed by A.O:- AOadded unsecured loans of Rs. 8000000.00 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. AO converted limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny