YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

capital account along with schedules 5. List of unsecured loans 6. Copy of Aadhar Card of person from whom unsecured loan is outstanding. 7. List of Sundry debtors and sundry creditors along with their ledgers. 8. Details of loan and advance along with ledgers. 9. Item wise purchase on monthly basis. Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT 10. Item-wise sales

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

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)

145(3) of the Act. The underlying rationale behind such an action is to meet the standards of correct computation of accounts for the purpose of a more transparent and precise assessment of income. Therefore, any pick and choose method of rejecting certain entries from the books of account while accepting other, without an appropriate justification

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

section 145(3) while making the addition. The ITAT in the above order also held that the subject matter of assessment is the matters which were taken up by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment are very much subject matter of appeal so far as the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) exercising enhancement of income. In this case also

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

145(3) of the Act and rejected the book results. As regards the contention of the assessee for verification of the sales by invoking the provision of section 133(6) [ calling for any information from any person or any officer ] , section 131 [ Summons enforcing attendance of any person or any officer and examine him on oath ] and Section 10 Jitendra

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains' but no addition was made in this regard, as no gains accrued to the appellant.\nHowever, learned AO proceeded to make addition on \"investment amount' under section 69A\nwhich is uncalled for.\n\nGround of Appeal No. 3\n\nThat the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law in not complying with principles of natural justice.\nFurther

COTTAGE HANDICRAFT TEXTILE EMPORIUM,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

capital, hiring of place (show room), employees, furniture and other infrastructure etc. The Id. AO has further noted that the submission of the assessee that they have 100% billing and maintain day to day stock is not acceptable. During the course of assessment proceedings open market enquiry was conducted, and it is found that the assessee is selling articles without