KANTA AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus i.e. Unno Industries Ltd. Thus, the AO added Rs. 21,39,336/- to total income of assessee under section 68 of the Act and commission paid @ 6% to the tune of Rs. 1,28,360/- was added total income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act and simultaneously disallowed Rs. 83,493/- under section 14A. Thus

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases, gross profit and closing stock. In these facts of the case the application of N.P. rate of 14.50% in place of 14.32% on sales means that expenses claimed in P & L A/c have been disallowed to the extent of addition. The claimed expenses cannot be disallowed unless it is held that the same are not for the purposes

AGRASEN PRIMSES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus loss claimed by the assessee. The fact\nrelated to that claim is that the assessee has made out of the disclosed\nsources in the shares of the companies as mentioned herein below, after\nmaking the investment in 7 – 8 month the assessee company noted that the\ninvestment made by the assessee getting deteriorated and therefore, sold\nthose share purchased

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

14A of I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently considering information received by\nId. AO from ITO (Inv.), Unit-1 and AIU, Kolkata, the assessment was reopened by\nissue of notice u/s 148 dated 18.03.2019, in response to which the assessee filed\nreturn of income and requested for supply of reasons recorded, which were\nprovided to the assessee vide letter dated

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

14A of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 16,35,150. The return was processed under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus share capital/share premium, pre-arranged bogus LTCG/STCL & unsecured loans etc to various beneficiaries/parties in lieu of commission in cash. Statement of Shri Manohar Lal Nangalia has already been recorded before the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), Kolkata on several occasions before. In his statement Shri Manohar Lal Nangalia has admitted that he was involved in providing accommodation entries through

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

bogus unsecured loan from M/s Inner Merchantile Pvt Ltd. No reference to any seized or impounded material.(Ref. Asst Order Para 11 Pg 49) v Disallowance of Rs 2001/ u/s 14A- No reference to any seized or impounded material. Addition made by the AO at (i), (iv) and (v) are not related to any seized or impounded documents. In making

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.

section 263 by the Commissioner proper and valid. [Para 16] (c) In the case of Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay], it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that: " ..... merely asking a question which goes to the root of the matter and not carrying it further is a case

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,55,68,397/- was flagged on Insight portal for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 as per Risk Management Strategy of CBDT. 4.1 On the basis of above information, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 27.03.2023 and after considering the reply of the assessee, order u/s 148A(d) was passed

SAURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

14A and partly sustained the disallowances u/s. 80IB made by the AO. Against that order of the ld. CIT(A) both the assessee as well as the revenue challenged that order before the Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided both appeals [ITA No. 258/JP/2015] of the assessee and [ITA No. 243/JP/2015] of the Department, vide its order dated

SOURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

14A and partly sustained the disallowances u/s. 80IB made by the AO. Against that order of the ld. CIT(A) both the assessee as well as the revenue challenged that order before the Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided both appeals [ITA No. 258/JP/2015] of the assessee and [ITA No. 243/JP/2015] of the Department, vide its order dated