PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

Bogus Purchase and ESI/PF 2014-2015 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed SCN: 244-247 [PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 248-251 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order: 122-139 [PBII] proportionate basis 2015-2016 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed Notice: 252-255[PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 256-259 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus. It is pertinent to mention that the purchases were made by the assessee when the assessee was having its only show room at M.I. Road, Jaipur whereas the survey was conducted at the show room at Narain Singh Circle, Jaipur. Subsequently the assessee has filed this record of inventory register showing the entries of the alleged purchases. Moreover, during

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus. It is pertinent to mention that the purchases were made by the assessee when the assessee was having its only show room at M.I. Road, Jaipur whereas the survey was conducted at the show room at Narain Singh Circle, Jaipur. Subsequently the assessee has filed this record of inventory register showing the entries of the alleged purchases. Moreover, during

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus. It is pertinent to mention that the purchases were made by the assessee when the assessee was having its only show room at M.I. Road, Jaipur whereas the survey was conducted at the show room at Narain Singh Circle, Jaipur. Subsequently the assessee has filed this record of inventory register showing the entries of the alleged purchases. Moreover, during

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

264 ITR-254 (Gau). 5.1.16. It is also relevant that the appellant had failed to provide even the basic information like the permanent Account Number which could have helped the Assessing Officer to verify the persons whose correct addresses were not provided by the appellant. The addresses provided by the appellant were found incorrect. 5.1.17. Further, the case laws relied

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

264-328) “16. Ground no. 2 relates to action of the lower authority treating the part of the sales attributable to cash sales as unexplained money (under section 69A) or that of the unexplained cash credits (under section 68 ) of the Act. As we hold a view that the revenue cannot be accept the part of the sales as explained

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

264 (Jaipur - Trib.) accepted the above proposition and held that Explanation to section 92B enhancing its scope to be applicable from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. 4.37. It is submitted that when the assessee made cash sales, the amended provisions of section 115BBE were not in existence. 4.38. Where an amendment, as under 92B, although was introduced having a retrospective effect

JR INDUSTRIES,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

264 of 1961 Act and the provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act are not identical with the provisions of section 263 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act which corresponds to section 263 of 1961 Act as under: "33A. Power of revision by Commissioner

VIKAS OIL PRODUCTS,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

264 of 1961 Act and the provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act are not identical with the provisions of section 263 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act which corresponds to section 263 of 1961 Act as under: "33A. Power of revision by Commissioner

OM INDUSTRIES,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JIAPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

264 of 1961 Act and the provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act are not identical with the provisions of section 263 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act which corresponds to section 263 of 1961 Act as under: "33A. Power of revision by Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus. It is pertinent to mention that the purchases were made by the assessee when the assessee was having its only show room at M.I. Road, Jaipur whereas the survey was conducted at the show room at Narain Singh Circle, Jaipur. Subsequently the assessee has filed this record of inventory register showing the entries of the alleged purchases. Moreover, during

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

Bench: Him.

bogus LTCG found to be credited in the books of made. account maintained by the Assessee. • Assessee has already submitted the • The Ld. CIT(A) relying heavily on sufficient documentary evidence which judicial precedents such as PCIT vs has not been disapproved and proved Arnav Goyal, deleted the addition false by the Ld. AO, no defect has without adequately examining

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

264 CTR 86 (RAJASTHAN-HC), CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax 21 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota. v/s Mark Hospitals (P.) Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 115 (Madras)(MAG.), Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

264 CTR 86 (RAJASTHAN-HC), CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax 21 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota. v/s Mark Hospitals (P.) Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 115 (Madras)(MAG.), Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Purchases and Deposits Pvt. Ltd., which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the A.O. was not having any material in his possession to substantiate the addition as the A.O. was not having even the statement of the alleged entry operator whereas the assessee has produced all the documentary evidences in support of the claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

Purchases and Deposits Pvt. Ltd., which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the A.O. was not having any material in his possession to substantiate the addition as the A.O. was not having even the statement of the alleged entry operator whereas the assessee has produced all the documentary evidences in support of the claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

Purchases and Deposits Pvt. Ltd., which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the A.O. was not having any material in his possession to substantiate the addition as the A.O. was not having even the statement of the alleged entry operator whereas the assessee has produced all the documentary evidences in support of the claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

Purchases and Deposits Pvt. Ltd., which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the A.O. was not having any material in his possession to substantiate the addition as the A.O. was not having even the statement of the alleged entry operator whereas the assessee has produced all the documentary evidences in support of the claim