INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

charitable activity as define u/s 2(15) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer finding that the various income on which tax has 6. been deducted at source is assessable in the hands of assessee as discussed supra and ld. AO has observed that “TDS credit claimed by the assessee is allowable, if at any stage of appeal

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

VII. Conclusion • The assessee’s silence to the Section 127 notice issued by the Central wing, Jaipur is deemed acceptance (J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust). • The transfer is a lawful administrative act within the Commissioner’s discretion (Pannalal Binjraj; Kashiram Aggarwalla). • Procedural safeguards were satisfied: notice, opportunity, and communication of reasons (Ajantha Industries; Genus Electrotech). • Under the faceless regime, territorial inconvenience

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

VII. Conclusion • The assessee’s silence to the Section 127 notice issued by the Central wing, Jaipur is deemed acceptance (J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust). • The transfer is a lawful administrative act within the Commissioner’s discretion (Pannalal Binjraj; Kashiram Aggarwalla). • Procedural safeguards were satisfied: notice, opportunity, and communication of reasons (Ajantha Industries; Genus Electrotech). • Under the faceless regime, territorial inconvenience

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

VII. Conclusion • The assessee’s silence to the Section 127 notice issued by the Central wing, Jaipur is deemed acceptance (J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust). • The transfer is a lawful administrative act within the Commissioner’s discretion (Pannalal Binjraj; Kashiram Aggarwalla). • Procedural safeguards were satisfied: notice, opportunity, and communication of reasons (Ajantha Industries; Genus Electrotech). • Under the faceless regime, territorial inconvenience

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

VII. Conclusion • The assessee’s silence to the Section 127 notice issued by the Central wing, Jaipur is deemed acceptance (J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust). • The transfer is a lawful administrative act within the Commissioner’s discretion (Pannalal Binjraj; Kashiram Aggarwalla). • Procedural safeguards were satisfied: notice, opportunity, and communication of reasons (Ajantha Industries; Genus Electrotech). • Under the faceless regime, territorial inconvenience

V C GRANITES,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Charitable Trust (15 taxmann.com 311) being some of the prominent decisions on the issue. However, for completing the assessment of the total income of the previous year in which search was conducted, issuance of Notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act has been held to be mandatory failing which assessment order has been quashed. In this regard

DCIT, AJMER vs. M/S V.C. GRANITE, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Charitable Trust (15 taxmann.com 311) being some of the prominent decisions on the issue. However, for completing the assessment of the total income of the previous year in which search was conducted, issuance of Notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act has been held to be mandatory failing which assessment order has been quashed. In this regard

RITIKA VEGETABLE OIL PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Against The Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Central Circle, Alwar [ For Short Ao].

section 40A during the year under consideration. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer 2(3)(2), New Delhi passed order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 31/10/2018 wherein no adverse inference has been drawn in 3 Ritika Vegetable Oil Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT respect of the Specified Domestic Transactions undertaken by the assessee company during

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

56,05,480) is treated as unexplained. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. (vii) Therefore the addition to the extent of Rs. 4,55,639/- is sustained instead of Rs. 5,52,241/- made by the assessing officer and the balance addition of Rs. 96,602/- (Rs. 5,52,241/-minus Rs. 4,55,639/-) is deleted. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 stands

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

56,05,480) is treated as unexplained. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. (vii) Therefore the addition to the extent of Rs. 4,55,639/- is sustained instead of Rs. 5,52,241/- made by the assessing officer and the balance addition of Rs. 96,602/- (Rs. 5,52,241/-minus Rs. 4,55,639/-) is deleted. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 stands

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

SAURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

vii) it held that completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under section 153A only on the Sourabh Agrotech Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced

SOURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

vii) it held that completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under section 153A only on the Sourabh Agrotech Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

vii) The Assessing Officer exercise quasi-judicial power vested in him\nand if he exercise such power in accordance with law and arrives as a\nconclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply\nbecause the PR. CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion.\n(viii) The PR. CIT, before exercising his jurisdiction under section 263,\nmust have

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

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 to the grounds

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

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 to the grounds

TIRUPATI COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

section. The said proviso reads as under: "Provided also that where the fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) is notified by the Central Government 1 [or is approved by the prescribed authority, as the case may be,] or any university or other educational institution referred

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

Bench: Him.

56,354/- totaling to Rs. 23,69,564/-, hence, this way the cash earned by the assessee out of genuine cash sale was worked out at Rs. 24,88,042/- after allowing weightage of 5% over last year turnover shown during this period and thereby ld. AO did not consider the sales to the tune of Rs. 11 Jitendra Kumar

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

vii) is reproduced hereunder: “It is not the case of the revenue that assessee has not shown the relevant stock register before the assessing officer. The assessee has maintained the complete stock tally in its accounting software. Such books of accounts are audited, quantitative records produced before the tax auditor, such quantitative records are certified by tax audit