JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

establish link between 'tangible material' and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and consequently, reassessment was unjustified-Held, ves Para 13 In favour of assessee 3. Addition of Rs. 44,73,700/- on account of alleged long term capital gain This ground relate to addition of 44,73,700/- made on account of LTCG

RAMA KANT SABOO,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7, BABA SIDDHANATHA BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital asset or personal use. Hence, the same squarely falls within the purview of Section 57(iii). 4. Principle of Real Income and Consistency  In subsequent assessment years, the appellant has duly disclosed and offered for tax foreign exchange gains under the head “Income from Other Sources.” The consistency of such treatment demonstrates transparency and establishes that both  exchange gains

VIJIT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain or u/s 48,\n56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is\nalso against the law and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld.\nAO has not invoked any provision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can\nmake the addition. When

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

capital gain of Rs.\n252000/- on said purchase and sale.\n2. That the Id CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs.\n1100000/- made by the Id AO to the income of the appellant on account of alleged\ncash payment for purchase of plot at Muhana Road, Jaipur referred to in ground

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

capital gain of Rs.\n252000/- on said purchase and sale.\n2. That the Id CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs.\n1100000/- made by the Id AO to the income of the appellant on account of alleged\ncash payment for purchase of plot at Muhana Road, Jaipur referred to in ground

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

capital gain of Rs.\n252000/- on said purchase and sale.\n2.\nThat the Id CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs.\n1100000/- made by the Id AO to the income of the appellant on account of alleged\ncash payment for purchase of plot at Muhana Road, Jaipur referred to in ground

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

capital gain of Rs.\n252000/- on said purchase and sale.\n2. That the Id CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs.\n1100000/- made by the Id AO to the income of the appellant on account of alleged\ncash payment for purchase of plot at Muhana Road, Jaipur referred to in ground

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

permanent\nemployee of the appellant company namely, M/s SHIV VEGPRO\nPRIVATE LIMITED, Kota, was assigned the task to collect the appeal\nprepared from the counsel at Jaipur, to get it signed and to ensure filing\nof the same in time. Shri Sushil Mittal was fully conversant with the\naffairs of the above assessee in the office of M/s SHIV VEGPRO

RAJASTHAN EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

permanent registration\nu/sec.80G on 30.09.2023. The ld.AR explained that ld.CIT(E) has\nrejected the assessee's application only on one ground that\nassessee's application was filed beyond the time allotted\nu/sec.80G(5) of the Act, hence, the ld.CIT(E) held that assessee's\napplication was not maintainable. The ld.AR relied on the order of\nthe Hon'ble Madras High

GOVIND LAL CHOUDHARY,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

permanent address. 2. The Order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) came late to my knowledge and therefore I could not take timely decision to file appeal against it. 3. When I approached my counsel then only I got to know about the available remedy of filing further Appeal before your goodself. In the above process, filing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital, unsecured loan, LTCG etc and to facilitate the same he earns commission. Further, financial analysis of the companies from whom the fund reached into the account of beneficiary companies was analyzed and found that the fund was finally transferred to the account of beneficiaries from the companies which have no actual business activities and showing either nil income

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

gains of business or profession under sub-section (3) and this sub-section where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees, in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed, having regard

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

gain any benefit because of the delayed finding and their conduct was not contumacious. 3. In support, affidavits of director Shri Jagmohan Singh Ahluwalia and employee Rahul Gupta are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 respectfully. 4. Supporting Case Laws: It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

permanent labour staff - Assessing Officer noted that in absence of number of employees in each of these categories, it was impossible to estimate accurate labour bill of assessee - Thus, he stated that assessee had not discharged its onus of furnishing these details so that amount of salary expense could not be satisfactorily accepted and, thus, 5 percent of total amount

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)

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 upon by the appellant are distinguishable to the extent that in the instant case, the appellant has failed to establish the genuineness

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains chargeable to income-tax have been\nunderassessed. The second is that he must have also reason to believe that such \"under-\nassessment”, has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure on the part of an assessee\nto make a return of his income under section 22, or (ii) omission or failure on the part of an\nassessee

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

establish the genuineness of receipt from DRAIPL, therefore, the amount of "42,00,40,000 is treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the income of the assessee. Also expenses claimed related to the receipt from DRAIPL are not explained therefore 10% of the proportionate expenses that

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

establish the genuineness of receipt from DRAIPL, therefore, the amount of "42,00,40,000 is treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the income of the assessee. Also expenses claimed related to the receipt from DRAIPL are not explained therefore 10% of the proportionate expenses that