PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

120 days as prescribed by the Act read with order passed by the Hon’ble apex court in suo moto Write petition (Civil) no. 3/2020 dated 27.04.2021. Thus the delay of 58 days filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases, and non­existing cash balance in the books of account. The AO did not even reject the books of accounts of the appellant under the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the revenue on the facts and circumstance of the case is not accepted and we see no reason to find any fault

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

section by invoking a section for which satisfaction is required to be by “Assessing Officer” and the assessing officer after considering the detailed reply and documents was satisfied about the ingredients of section 68. Reliance placed on the following decisions:- a) ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s MotisonsGobal Private Limited vs ACIT ITA No 388/ JP/2017 order dated

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

120 and 124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nAssessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

120 and 124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nAssessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

120 and 124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nAssessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

120 and 124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nAssessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

120 and 124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n- Assessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

bogus and the investment in the residential house cannot be treated as unexplained—CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition. (ii) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CHANDRESH KUMAR MAHESHWARI (ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH (2009) 120 TTJ 0132 : (2008) 16 DTR 0114 The AO has come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 66,90,330 found credited

PREM DEVI BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE, C-SCHEME

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

purchase and sale of shares and the resultant Long- Term Capital Gain are genuine and cannot be treated as bogus, the consequential addition made by the AO on account of presumed commission paid, treating the same as undisclosed expenditure under Section 69C of the Act, does not hold good and is accordingly unsustainable. Therefore, the addition made

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the CBDT hereby directs that the Income Tax Authorities of the National e-Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as "the NeAC") specified in column (2) of the Schedule below, having its headquarters at the place mentioned in column (3) of the said Schedule

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the CBDT hereby directs that the Income Tax Authorities of the National e-Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as "the NeAC") specified in column (2) of the Schedule below, having its headquarters at the place mentioned in column (3) of the said Schedule

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

purchase of mutual funds. Since, the assessee failed to explain the source of investment, the source of investment of Rs. 7,50,000/- remained unexplained and thus added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Thus the ld. AO made the entire cash deposit without seeing the withdrawals

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

purchase of mutual funds. Since, the assessee failed to explain the source of investment, the source of investment of Rs. 7,50,000/- remained unexplained and thus added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Thus the ld. AO made the entire cash deposit without seeing the withdrawals

SHRIKANT SINGHANIA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

120, 1st Floor, Hari Marg, Vs. Tax, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AJJPS8943G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 08/01/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus sales or purchases on account of revenue account. As per the record and the reasons recorded, no enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion or reasons to belief with regard to evasion of tax which has escaped assessment. 10. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

120(Raj.) it has been held that In each trading account, only four entries were there of opening stock, purchase on debit side, sales and closing stock on credit side. The quantum and value of purchases and sales had not been in dispute inasmuch as they were held to be fully vouched. Value of opening stock also cannot be disputed

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

120(Raj.) it has been held that In each trading account, only four entries were there of opening stock, purchase on debit side, sales and closing stock on credit side. The quantum and value of purchases and sales had not been in dispute inasmuch as they were held to be fully vouched. Value of opening stock also cannot be disputed