GALAXY IMPEX,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the disallowance made

purchases and sale are through banking channels. Further the books of accounts are duly audited and backed by stock records and quantitative tally.(PB 100). The other main reason for fall in the GP rate for the year under reference was due to decrease in turnover for the year under reference. The turnover of the assessee firm decreased from Rs.21

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)

234D which are consequential in nature. The interest charges are not sustainable once the additions are deleted. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or withdraw any all of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. “ ITA NO. 1115/JPR/2025 AY 2018-19 : “1. The ld. CIT (A) erred

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

234D which are consequential in nature. The\ninterest charges are not sustainable once the additions are deleted.\n5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or modify or withdraw any all of the\nabove grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.\nITA NO. 1115/JPR/2025

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

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

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 Pvt. Ltd. She also

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

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

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

RAJESH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing calculation of tax and interest chargeable, if any, is attached herewith forming part of this order. Charge interest u/s 234A/ 234B/234C and 234D, if any, a peer rules. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. Rajesh Kumar Khandealwal vs. ITO 7. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred

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