ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

bogus LTCG. Therefore, the same is assessed in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act. 5.3.3 In respect of this ground, the appellant in his written submission made the following argument: 59. As stated in brief facts of the case that the Appellant purchased total

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,HINDAUN CITY vs. ITO, DAUSA

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

Bench: The Issue Of Notice U/S 148. 2

234c of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 2. Ground no. 1 is regarding validity of reopening. The assessee filed its return of income on 27.10.2004 declaring total income of Rs. 1,49,009/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO noted that during the year under consideration the assessee entered into transactions 3 ITA 111/JP/14_ Ashok

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.

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

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.

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

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\

bogus persons\nwas out of the amounts appearing in the ‘Dasti Bahi.’ This finding of fact has not\nbeen controverted by the Revenue. The assessee was carrying on the business\nof ‘Arhat’ and undisclosed income was found recorded in the ‘Dasti Bahi’. The AO\nhad made the addition on the basis of entries found recorded in the regular books

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

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

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

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 in not allowing

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

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 the date

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)

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 this appeal

S.R. PROTIENS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the disallowance of Rs 71,795 is hereby deleted

234C & 234D as consequential in nature. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. Hence the interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.” The Revenue has taken following solitary ground of appeal:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

purchase of properties were seized, as specifically noted by the AO himself in the satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C of the Act. There apart, at various places including the finding recorded in the assessment order for AY 2012-13, the fact of seizure of possession letter is mentioned. The Respondent AO simply mentioned that what was shared by the DDIT

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

234C of the Act. 23. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend and modify all or any ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 2.2 Whereas the grounds appeal raised by the revenue in appeal No. 740/JP/2024 for assessment year 2021-22 reads as follows: “1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

234C of the Act. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not issuing directions for dropping penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add or to amend the foregoing ground of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest of justice

SHRI GOVIND RAM MODI,KOTA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

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

section 145(3). The assessee has maintained regular books of accounts which are also audited u/s 44AB. The assessee has maintained cashbook, ledger, production register, journal and supporting vouchers. The auditors have not pointed out any defect in the maintenance of regular books of accounts. It was further Shri Govind Ram Modi, Kota vs. The ITO, Kota submitted that

M/S OM PLANTATION,22, PATH NO.6, VIJAY BARI, TEEN DUKAN, SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), JAIPUR

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

purchased a land situated at Bhankrota, Jaipur for Rs. 1,76,34,000/- on 11.08.2005 through registered sale deed from Smt. Dhapu Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. As per sale deed the sale consideration was paid through various cheques and DDs. Further in the course of investigation/inquiries it came to the notice that on 12.08.2005 total cas of Rs. 180.80 Lacs

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

234C is not justified and hence, directed to be deleted... ” In view of facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and respectfully following the decisions of aforementioned judicial pronouncements, AO is directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234 B accordingly after giving credit of amount of Rs. 7,77,400/= being claim made by the assessee

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

234C is not justified and hence, directed to be deleted... ” In view of facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and respectfully following the decisions of aforementioned judicial pronouncements, AO is directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234 B accordingly after giving credit of amount of Rs. 7,77,400/= being claim made by the assessee

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

234C is not justified and hence, directed to be deleted... ” In view of facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and respectfully following the decisions of aforementioned judicial pronouncements, AO is directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234 B accordingly after giving credit of amount of Rs. 7,77,400/= being claim made by the assessee