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.

TDS was deducted is shown in advance received and not in the sales of the assessee company. Therefore the sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration. The flats are fully prepared in AY 2015-16 and then they are sold. On perusal of assessment record, it is seen that AO has not carried out any investigation/enquiry

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

41) as incorrect. Further, statement\nu/s 132(4) itself is evidence (as per judgement in Kantilal C. Shah (supra).\n5.8 In view of the above discussion on the facts of the case it is clear that the\npayment of rupees forty lakhs was made in cash and to that extent the appellant\nwas found to be owning and thus invested

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

41. This distinction was noticed by this Court in Dhingra Metal Works (supra). The Court there referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101/129 Taxman 416 and of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son (supra) and observed that the word 'may' occurring in Section 133A

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184\nRajasthan, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88\nITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the\nassessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in\nCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC),\nDeputy

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS\nDeposited\n1\nICICI BANK LIMITED\nIFPRT01273G\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\n05-May-2010\n2936021.00\n295567.00\n29556706\n2\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\nF\n05-May-2010\n8522.06\nR$2.00\n852.00\n3\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\nF\n05-May-2010\n38422.00\n3842.00\n3842.00\n4\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\nF\n05-May-2010\n54440.00\n$449.00\n5449.00\n5\n194A

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

41) as incorrect. Further, statement\nu/s 132(4) itself is evidence (as per judgement in Kantilal C. Shah (supra).\n5.8 In view of the above discussion on the facts of the case it is clear that the\npayment of rupees forty lakhs was made in cash and to that extent the appellant\nwas found to be owning and thus invested

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

41) as incorrect. Further, statement\nu/s 132(4) itself is evidence (as per judgement in Kantilal C. Shah (supra).\n5.8 In view of the above discussion on the facts of the case it is clear that the\npayment of rupees forty lakhs was made in cash and to that extent the appellant\nwas found to be owning and thus invested

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

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184\nRajasthan, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88\nITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the\nassessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in\nCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC),\nDeputy

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

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

section 54F (1)b of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.1. In the computation of income, the appellant had claimed Rs.1,20,380/- as cost of acquisition, which was supported by a purchase deed of both the property. The AO noted that that the total cost of both the property amounted to Rs.1,02,225/- (Rs. 87,725/- Rs.14

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS) JP (2017) 87 taxmann.com 184 (Rajasthan) and CIT Vs\nVegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192(SC) The Hon'ble\nCourt held that if, two views are possible, the view in favour of the\nassessee should be preferred.\n(b) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs CIT, Dhanbad (2013) 257 CTR\n159 (Jharkhand)\n(c) CIT, Karnataka Vs Shri Ramdas

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)

41 OM PRAKASH GHIYA HUF 4,02,150 22.11.2017 325 42 PRAGYA SONKHIYA 3,44,700 31.07.2018 327 43 PRIYANKA AGARWAL 5,25,000 21.06.2017 328 1,05,000 08.03.2018 329 44 PUSHPA SONKHIYA 45 RAJESH KUMAR RAJORIA 2,05,000 26.07.2019 331 46 SHOBHA DEVI 4,30,000 02.06.2017 332 47 SHRUTI BHAMA 1,07,50023.06.2017 . 333 48 SHRUTI

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

41,16,578/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the addition was made by the Learned Assessing officer by adopting the stamp duty of Sub-registrar where the assessee has not concealed any income. 3. The appellant begs permission to add amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal before the hearing of appeal

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)

4 M/s. Airlink International, Jaipur. invoice (PB 41-44) it can be noted that the invoices raised is only for freight charges. Hence, only because these 3 parties have deducted TDS on the amount of Rs. 12,95,311/- u/s 194H instead of U/s 194C, the same cannot be assessed as income from other sources. From the sample copy

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

TDS by various persons and entities of the Maverick group including assessee, along with many other individuals and entities (who are not at all related with assessee). These excel sheets contained details of amount borrowed, interest paid, Tax deducted, amount of loan returned with dates of assessee, as also contained the last column which had further sub columns which