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

purchases is to\nbe added not substantial part of transaction—When in subsequent assessment year in AY 2011-\n12, AO himself made addition only @ 10% of net profit in assessment order passed under section\n143(3); book profit shown by assessee @ 11.45% for year under consideration was reasonable\nand justified-Therefore, assessee also succeeded on merit—Assssee's appeal allowed

SATYA NARAYAN ,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1434/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Satya Narayan बनाम Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Shiv Charan Lal Satya Vs. Ward -1, Narayan, Navin Mandi Yard, Nadbai, Bharatpur Bharatpur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPN9055M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh

bogus expenses to reduce its profit/taxable income. Therefore genuineness/correctness of expenses related to these entities may be verified”. 11. On that issue the assessee was asked to furnish reply to inter-alia regarding purchases, transportation, payments to suppliers, expenses etc. In response to the above, the assessee had furnished the list of all suppliers from whom purchases were made

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

bogus expenses and by\nusing the money of trust by taking the various advances. However, it is further cleared\nthat Honble Apex Court in three recent decision namely Ahmedabad developmental\nauthority 143 taxman 278, New Nobel Education 143 taxman 246, and Baba Banda\nBahadur Civil Appeal No. 10511 of 2013, had made remarkable change, where the theory\nof dominant objects

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

292B of the Act, is untenable, having regard to the phraseology used in paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular. 19. The object and purpose of the issuance of the 2019 Circular, as indicated hereinabove, inter alia, was to create an audit trail. Therefore, the communication relating to assessments, appeals, orders, etcetera which find mention in paragraph

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

bogus or untrue. It is further evident that there was neither any detection nor any information in the possession of the Revenue which might lead to a conclusion that there was a detection by the Revenue of concealment. Accordingly, the question of law framed is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. The Appeal is dismissed.....” Though

PRADEEP KUMAR,JHUJHUNU vs. ITO WARD -2, JHUJHUNU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

292B (i) In the case of Vikram Singh vs. Income Tax Officer (2021) 63 CCH 0044 Lucknow Trib Reassessment—Escapement of income—Case of assessee was reopened u/s. 147 for deposits in bank amounting Rs.11,00,000—Held, Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 has held that sec. 147 has this

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

purchase of mutual funds. Since, the assessee failed to explain the source of investment, the source of investment of Rs. 7,50,000/- remained unexplained and thus added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Thus the ld. AO made the entire cash deposit without seeing the withdrawals

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

purchase of mutual funds. Since, the assessee failed to explain the source of investment, the source of investment of Rs. 7,50,000/- remained unexplained and thus added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Thus the ld. AO made the entire cash deposit without seeing the withdrawals

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

292B cannot take care of any mistake in recording the reasons because that\nsection refers to \"return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings\"—\nIt does not refer to the reasons recorded by the AO—Any invalid proceedings for\nassumption of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by s.292B\n(i) In the case of Vikram Singh vs. Income Tax Officer