SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

928/-. The action is unjustified, illegal or excessive and deserves to be deleted in full. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making the addition on account of profit of Rs. 8,93,428/- on account of Gopala Garments and addition of Rs. 21,15,481/- on account of Race

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

928/-. The action is unjustified, illegal or excessive and deserves to be deleted in full. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making the addition on account of profit of Rs. 8,93,428/- on account of Gopala Garments and addition of Rs. 21,15,481/- on account of Race

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

928/-. The action is unjustified, illegal or excessive and deserves to be deleted in full. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making the addition on account of profit of Rs. 8,93,428/- on account of Gopala Garments and addition of Rs. 21,15,481/- on account of Race

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

928/-. The action is unjustified, illegal or excessive and deserves to be deleted in full. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making the addition on account of profit of Rs. 8,93,428/- on account of Gopala Garments and addition of Rs. 21,15,481/- on account of Race

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

928 ============= During the year, assessee has earned income from cash 30 Anusha Finvest Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT market long term transactions to the extent of Rs. 20,15,661/-, which was claimed by the assessee as exempt u/s 10(38) by shifting the above transaction to capital gains from business income. We notice that before the CIT(A), assessee submitted

SHRI RAM BABU VIJAY ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

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

928/- and the ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining thereof. 4. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law and facts in making addition in LTCG Rs. 1,12,643.00 and the ld. CIT (A) also erred in sustaining thereof. 5. Any other grounds at the time of hearing.” Ground No. 1 is general in nature and does not require

SHRI RAM BABU VIJAY ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

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

928/- and the ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining thereof. 4. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law and facts in making addition in LTCG Rs. 1,12,643.00 and the ld. CIT (A) also erred in sustaining thereof. 5. Any other grounds at the time of hearing.” Ground No. 1 is general in nature and does not require

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

capital of Rs. 1,08,36,565/-. The addition is unjustified, illegal or excessive and deserves to be deleted in full. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld. A.O. has erred in making addition on account of alleged opening unexplained loan of Rs. 1,34,53,241/-. The addition is unjustified, illegal or excessive and deserves to be deleted

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

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

gains”. The argument is that the service of the requisite notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under Section 34; and if a valid notice is not issued as required, proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer in 12 Kailash Chand Yadav vs. ITO pursuance of an invalid notice and consequent orders

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 10 of The General Clauses Act, 1897 which specifies that where any act etc. is to be done within a prescribed period by any Central Act or Regulation and if the court/ office is closed on that day then the act etc. shall be considered as done in due time if it is done the next day on which

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

MARVEL SUPPORT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed per ground

928/- (5,51,07,678-3,84,38,750) on the receipt of Rs.7,29,27,253/- (11,52,27,253-4,23,00,000) which is 22.86% of the receipt. Thus, the reasons for increase in expenditure as compared to the last year is otherwise explained. This apart from the details of sales promotion expenses, the nature of expenditure

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

928/= considered for disallowance by the learned Assessing Officer. 6. The above facts very clearly establishes the nexus between the interest free funds with investment in shares and the capital invested in partnership firms as well as interest bearing borrowed funds applied for making investment ins shares of limited companies and therefore Provision of Rule 8D are not required

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

928/= considered for disallowance by the learned Assessing Officer. 6. The above facts very clearly establishes the nexus between the interest free funds with investment in shares and the capital invested in partnership firms as well as interest bearing borrowed funds applied for making investment ins shares of limited companies and therefore Provision of Rule 8D are not required