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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS deducted of Rs. 31,350/- on aggregate receipts of Rs. 2,85,311/-. It was found that that assessee company has not disclosed these receipts in its books of account for the assessment years 2011- 12, therefore an addition of Rs. 2,85,311/- is made to the total income of the assessee for undisclosed receipts. The AO mentioned

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS deducted of Rs. 31,350/- on aggregate receipts of Rs. 2,85,311/-. It was found that that assessee company has not disclosed these receipts in its books of account for the assessment years 2011- 12, therefore an addition of Rs. 2,85,311/- is made to the total income of the assessee for undisclosed receipts. The AO mentioned

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

TDS was not deductible. Apsara Silk Vs. ITO, International Taxation (2016) 69 taxmann.com399 (Bangalore-Trib,) (e) We also rely on following judgments: 24 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur (i) Dy. CIT VS. TVS Srichakra Ltd.(2015) 64 taxmann.com 18 (Chennai-Trib,) (ii) (ii) CIT, Coimbatore Vs. Kikani Exports(p) Ltd. (2014) 66 taxmann.com

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 272A(2)(k) being a new provision, branch manager was not known to its technical formalities; that thereafter, bank engaged an advocate for preparing statement, who found difficulty in completing detailed M/s Argus Golden Trade India Ltd. Vs. JCIT TDS, Jaipur statement in absence of PAN of all customers and that, therefore, there was delay in filing e-TDS

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 was also deducted. After the submission no enquiry was conducted and the issue of additional evidence filed were not discussed with while rendering the finding by the ld. CIT(A). 29 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT He submitted at page 85 and 86 being the acknowledgement of filling the online application for additional evidence relied upon

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 143(3)\nof the Income Tax Act, [ for short Act] by ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur [ for short\nAO ]\n2.\nIn this appeal, the revenue has raised following grounds: -\n\"1. On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in\nadmitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962\nwithout

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

260 A before the Hon'ble High Court. 7.1 After receipt of order of the Hon'ble ITAT a notice dated 22.03.2018 was issued for the first time by Addl. CIT (TDS) Jaipur to show-cause as to why penalty under section

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B

DRAWMET WIRES PVT. LTD.,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

TDS u/s 194 instead of DDT u/s 115 O. Therefore there are various factual mistake in the return of income as well as in the challan which shows that the assessee has inadvertently and due to inexperience staff has shown this amount in the return of income as dividend declared during the year under consideration. Once the assessee has produced

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAKESH GOEL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, addition of Rs.90,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on\naccount of non-deduction of TDS on interest payment is hereby sustained and\nground of appeal is dismissed\nThe grounds No. 4 of the appeal is dismissed.\n4.8 The ground No. 5 pertains to disallowance of interest expenses of\nRs.23

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

260 (Delhi) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since the satisfaction note forms the basis for initiating the proceedings under Section

NASH FASHIONS (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

260 (All.) and CIT v. Smt. Dhirajben R. Amin [1983] 141 ITR 875 (Guj.), have held that section 80G(2)(a) does not contemplate any donation in kind; instead, the expression 'sums' relates to the cash amount of money which may have been donated by the assessee. On a careful scrutiny of the two opinions in the 19 Nash Fashion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA, AJMER

In the result appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

section 127 of the Act and thus the jurisdiction was assigned to ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer. The assessee has filed his original return of income for the year under consideration on 15.02.2021 declaring taxable income of Rs. 28,92,260/-. During the year, the assessee is having income from House Property, Income from Business or Profession, Income from Capital Gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. CHANDRA KANT SAINI , AJMER

In the result appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

section 127 of the Act and thus the jurisdiction was assigned to ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer. The assessee has filed his original return of income for the year under consideration on 15.02.2021 declaring taxable income of Rs. 28,92,260/-. During the year, the assessee is having income from House Property, Income from Business or Profession, Income from Capital Gain

TEJ PAL SINGH,REENGUS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NEEM KA THANA, NEEM KA THANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Me That The Capital Gain Earned On This Land Acquired By Nhai Was Exempt In Terms Of Provision Section 10 Sub-Section (37) Of The Act. He Drew My Attention To The Relevant Provision Of Section 10(37) Of The Act As Under:-

260 per sq. meters which were acquired by National Highway Authority and compensation amounting to Rs.5,89,563/- received by the assessee during the impugned assessment year. Learned counsel for the assessee contended before me that the capital gain earned on this land acquired by NHAI was exempt in terms of provision Section 10 sub-Section

SHRI SURENDRA GAJRAJ ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1018/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cuke Surendra Gajraj, I.T.O., F-132 C, Road No. 12, Vki Area, Vs. Ward- 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abypg 2156 Q Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

260/- by making additions on accounts of disallowance on commission and the trading addition. 3 ITA 1018/JP/2018 _ Surendra Gajraj Vs ITO 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions as well as material placed on record, given part relief to the assessee by upholding