MOHAN SINGH,VIDHYADHAR NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NCRB JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

bogus purchase. It is here to submit that Ld AO has not quoted under which provision of\nIncome tax Act he has made such addition to total income and thus merely on his whims &\nfancies the purchase of Rs. 266591095/- is treated as unverifiable purchase and added to total\nincome and further CIT (A) on the ground of non submission

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases and to that extent profit had\nescaped assessment from tax. The assessee filed its objections to the reopening of\nassessment. The AO passed an order rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner\nwhich showed that the reopening was based on material received from the DGIT (Inv.),\nMumbai, pursuant to inquiries made by him (the DGIT). On writ filed

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

bogus entities-Tribunal\nallowed assessee's appeal on merits-Revenue appealed against appellate order on merits-\nAssessee's cross appeal was on correctness of reopening of assessment-Tribunal upheld\nassessee's cross-objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no\nproper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-\ncondition for issuing

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 \nfu/k Zkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal \n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside \nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur \ncuke \nVs. \nACIT, \nCentral Circle-2, \nJaipur \nLFkk;h y s[kk la-@thvk Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \ni zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025 \nfu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year

234B & \n234C of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Rs.19,08,302/- and Rs.40,656/-which is \ncontrary to the provisions of law where the specific request was made by the \nassessee in the return filed u/s 139 of the Act.\n6. Under the facts and Circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has \nerred in not allowing benefit

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

234B &\n234C of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Rs.19,08,302/- and Rs.40,656/-which is\ncontrary to the provisions of law where the specific request was made by the\nassessee in the return filed u/s 139 of the Act.\n6. Under the facts and Circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has\nerred in not allowing benefit

LAXMIKANT TAK,PANCHSHEEL AJMER vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchase bills etc. It was noted that the books of account were not complete. Further on examination of the cash book it was seen that there were discrepancies in the cash book entries. Also it was noted by the A.O that the assessee had not submitted proof of certain expenses incurred on the last day of the financial year

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

purchase of diverse materials and services. Government contracts have specific compliance requirements affecting profit margins. 5. The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 91,05,708/- which is Excessive compared to the declared income of Rs. 70,33,180/- and not supported by any material evidence of income suppression. It is based on presumptions rather than

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchase of diverse materials and services. Government\ncontracts have specific compliance requirements affecting profit margins.\n5. The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.91,05,708/- which is\nExcessive compared to the declared income of Rs.70,33,180/- and not supported\nby any material evidence of income suppression. It is based on presumptions\nrather than facts

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)

section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanic Products Exporting Co. v. CIT [2000] 241 TTR 497 (Ker.). The legislature had laid down

BALVEER SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

bogus long term capital gains by\ninvesting in an unknown company Whether there being a clear link between\ninformation available with Assessing Officer and his formation of belief that\nIncome chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, reopening of assessment\nwas justified - Held, yes [Paras 7 and 8] [In favour of revenue.\"\n14. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 15 (Calcutta) HIGH COURT

SANTOSH KANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO 6(4 ) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

234B, 234C, 234D & 244A(3) if applicable as per rules. ITNS-150 issued, which is forming part of this order. Issue demand notice & challan accordingly. Penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is issued separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 4 Santosh Kanwar, Jaipur. 4. Assessee-appellant, an individual, used to draw salary as director of Singla Buildcom

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Rs. 19,08,302/- and Rs. 40,656/-which is contrary to the provisions of law where the specific request was made by the assessee in the return filed u/s 139 of the Act. 6. Under the facts and Circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred

M/S. BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

234B & 234C of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 6. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SH. NAVAL KISHORE, KOTA

Section 34) are \nadmissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the \nformer's correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge \nShri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them \nfor there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In \nthat view of the matter we need

NAVAL KISHORE ,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

234B of the Act. The\nappellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The\ninterest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts,\nkindly be deleted in full.\n8. The appellant prays your honor indulgences to add, amend or alter\nof or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date

SAFE INFRACON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal of the appellant are hereby dismissed’’

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

purchase. Therefore, proceedings u/s 147 was initiated after prior approval from Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 03-03-2017. In response to the notice, the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 declaring total loss at Rs.45,532/-. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued

SAFE INFRACON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal of the appellant are hereby dismissed’’

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

purchase. Therefore, proceedings u/s 147 was initiated after prior approval from Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 03-03-2017. In response to the notice, the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 declaring total loss at Rs.45,532/-. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued

MOHAN LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-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)

234B and 234C. In this regard, it is held that charge of interest is consequential in nature and being upheld according to the addition confirmed in this order. 6.9 Accordingly, the ground 2 of appeal is disposed on merits and based on Information/documents available on records.” 2.2 Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred