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)

TDS on the same has been duly deducted: Pg Name of the party V. Date Weight (In Making rate per Total making no No. grams) gram (In Rs.) charges (In Rs.) 7 M/s Jagdish Prasad 157 23.03.2015 1080.520 80 86521 Kamal Kumar Soni 8 M/s Ganpati Ornaments 158 23.03.2015 1184.73 80 94778 2266.25 At the outset it is submitted that

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)

TDS on the same has been duly deducted: Pg Name of the party V. Date Weight (In Making rate per Total making no No. grams) gram (In Rs.) charges (In Rs.) 7 M/s Jagdish Prasad 157 23.03.2015 1080.520 80 86521 Kamal Kumar Soni 8 M/s Ganpati Ornaments 158 23.03.2015 1184.73 80 94778 2266.25 At the outset it is submitted that

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)

TDS on the same has been duly deducted: Pg Name of the party V. Date Weight (In Making rate per Total making no No. grams) gram (In Rs.) charges (In Rs.) 7 M/s Jagdish Prasad 157 23.03.2015 1080.520 80 86521 Kamal Kumar Soni 8 M/s Ganpati Ornaments 158 23.03.2015 1184.73 80 94778 2266.25 At the outset it is submitted that

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)

TDS on the same has been duly deducted: Pg Name of the party V. Date Weight (In Making rate per Total making no No. grams) gram (In Rs.) charges (In Rs.) 7 M/s Jagdish Prasad 157 23.03.2015 1080.520 80 86521 Kamal Kumar Soni 8 M/s Ganpati Ornaments 158 23.03.2015 1184.73 80 94778 2266.25 At the outset it is submitted that

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

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

TDS of Rs.21,732/-. The impugned order thus, to this\nextent in nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be\nquashed.\n6. Rs.6,35,00,000/-: The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an issue for obtaining new loans during the\nimpugned previous year of Rs.6,35,00,000/-. The impugned order thus

VIRENDRA PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

69, at the\nspecial rate under Section 115BBE). Aggrieved, the assessee is now before the\nHon'ble ITAT.\n\nGROUNDS OF APPEAL\n\nGROUND NO.\n2\nADDITION OF Rs.55,00,000 AS ALLEGED ON- MONEY\n[Submissions apropos Ground No. 1 have been made subsequently]\n\n1.\nSUBMISSIONS\n\n1. 1. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was confronted

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

Section 69 of the I.T. Act and added to the assessee's total\nincome. The assessee commission/brokerage from:\nBerry Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Rs.25,52,624 (TDS

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)

Section 69 of the I.T. Act and added to the assessee's total income. The assessee commission/brokerage from: Berry Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 25,52,624 (TDS

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,SHRAWASTI vs. ITO, WD 6(4), JAIPUR

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

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

TDS which is verifiable from 26AS. 2.21 Reliance in this regard is placed decision of Harsh Washesher Chadha vs. ACIT Circle (Internatinal Taxation) [ITA No. 123/Del/2021] (ITAT, Delhi) Copy is placed on pages 193 to 198 of the Paper Book. 2.3 In view of the aforementioned arguments, it is most respectfully submitted that the section 69

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

TDS made on the Income Tax\nPortal. Finally, the assessment has been completed after making addition of Rs.\n40,00,000/- u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged cash payment made\nfor purchase of residential flat and Rs.50,000/- u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 on\naccount of alleged loan(s) and advance

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

69 of the Act and a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-\nis added back to the total income of the assessee and taxable at the rate\nof 30% as provision u/s 11588E.\"\n5.5 In his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of action of\nsearch the appellant has agreed that the flats have been sold

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

TDS and to introduce the unaccounted money through bogus sales. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the retail showroom at Jodhpur is approximately 1600 sq. feet in size and it is spread over three stories and there are approximately 9 to 10 employees besides the MOU correspondence. It has also been submitted that there is one billing counter