M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

bogus concern which was operated by Shri Rajendra Jain without any physical deliveries and such purchases amounting to Rs 7,54,587/- were treated as non genuine and 25% of such purchases were brought to tax as unexplained expenditure besides addition of Rs. 15,092/-, being 2% of Rs. 7,54,587/- on account of alleged commission paid for obtaining

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.

144C as invalid and void ab initio which is liable to be quashed since not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability

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.

144C as invalid and void ab initio which is liable to be quashed since not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability

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

144C as invalid and void ab initio which is liable to be quashed since not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act.\n3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

144C dated 28-12-2017 was forwarded by the AO to the Ld. PCIT. I fail to understand on what basis this averment was made by the Id AR as there is no such requirement in law to send a copy of the draft order to the Ld. PCIT. 1.4.1 It has been submitted by the Id. AR that