RAJASTHAN TRANSMAT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 7(2),, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MEETHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus entries of name lenders. (iii) If the enquiries and investigations reveal that the identity of the creditors to be dubious or doubtful or lack credit- worthiness then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. In such a case, the assessee would not have discharged the primary onus contemplated by Section 68 of the Act. 6.1.4. The assessment

DHANUKA REALTY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 56(2)(viib) it clearly comes out that it has been brought on statute book from assessment year 2013-14 onwards and it is not retrospective nor its language in any way suggest that it is to operate retrospectively. (vi) In regard to Retrospective Legislation it is submitted that the general principle is that provisions in a statue would

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

purchase and sale of real\nestate and flats, it was held that the direction of the Tribunal to the AO to take\n25% of the sale proceeds received in cash as assessee's income rather than\nmaking addition of entire amount of sale proceeds received in cash is\nsustainable. In such cases, not the entire receipt but only the profit

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

purchase and sale of real estate and flats, it was held that the direction of the Tribunal to the AO to take 25% of the sale proceeds received in cash as assessee's income rather than making addition of entire amount of sale proceeds received in cash is sustainable. In such cases, not the entire receipt but only the profit

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)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have

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

vii. The concerned authority vide order dated 08-09-2021 transferred jurisdiction from Kolkata to Ajmer.(PB Page 66-68 & 69-71) by rejecting assessee company objections. viii. The concerned authority (Ld. PCIT, Kolkata), despite repeated requests, did not provided any information or documents or warrant suggesting that assessee company case is related with the search proceedings conducted at “Saini

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,55,68,397/- was flagged on Insight portal for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 as per Risk Management Strategy of CBDT. 4.1 On the basis of above information, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 27.03.2023 and after considering the reply of the assessee, order u/s 148A(d) was passed

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) for Rs. 1,46,933/- was made which were not disputed before us as the Sh. Tarachand Gupta same was considered by the ld. CIT(A) therefore, that part of the facts is not repeated here. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) for Rs. 1,46,933/- was made which were not disputed before us as the Sh. Tarachand Gupta same was considered by the ld. CIT(A) therefore, that part of the facts is not repeated here. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchaser also was unearthed and exact amount of income escaped from assessment was supported by ample evidence- Whether therefore, no ground could be taken that other material which were already available with Department could not be relied on in proceedings- Held, yes [Paras 13, 21 and 22] [In favour of revenue]" (X) The ld AR has placed reliance

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchaser also was unearthed and exact amount of income escaped from assessment was supported by ample evidence- Whether therefore, no ground could be taken that other material which were already available with Department could not be relied on in proceedings- Held, yes [Paras 13, 21 and 22] [In favour of revenue]" (X) The ld AR has placed reliance

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchaser also was unearthed and exact amount of income escaped from assessment was supported by ample evidence- Whether therefore, no ground could be taken that other material which were already available with Department could not be relied on in proceedings- Held, yes [Paras 13, 21 and 22] [In favour of revenue]" (X) The ld AR has placed reliance

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

vii) CIT, Patiala Vs Ganesh Steel Industries (2009) 184 Taxman 220 (P&H). (viii) CIT Vs Indo Persian Rugs (2007) 160 Taxman 127 (Allahabad) (ix) CIT Vs Soble & Miglani (2005) 145 Taxman 353 (All.) 11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions

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

vii) CIT, Patiala Vs Ganesh Steel Industries (2009) 184 Taxman 220 (P&H). (viii) CIT Vs Indo Persian Rugs (2007) 160 Taxman 127 (Allahabad) (ix) CIT Vs Soble & Miglani (2005) 145 Taxman 353 (All.) 11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions

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

vii) CIT, Patiala Vs Ganesh Steel Industries (2009) 184 Taxman 220 (P&H). (viii) CIT Vs Indo Persian Rugs (2007) 160 Taxman 127 (Allahabad) (ix) CIT Vs Soble & Miglani (2005) 145 Taxman 353 (All.) 11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchase receipts 3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5) 4. Copy of Demat Account 5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts 6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has declared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1) He also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchase receipts 3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5) 4. Copy of Demat Account 5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts 6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has declared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1) He also based

GAYATRI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

56(2)(viib)— Moreover, once all the details were made available before the CIT, he should have decided the issues instead of setting aside to the AO—Therefore, the order passed by the Principal CIT under s. 263 is quashed. 8.3 In [2016] 76 taxmann.com 226 (SC) CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd (DPB 17 ) Held: IT : SLP dismissed against High