KARUNA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 2(1), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

penny stock i.e. M/s HPC BIO SCIENCES LTD is also available at ITS Data/AIR. 3. After a detailed analysis of the facts and deliberation on the issue between the assessee and the AO the case of the assessee was assessed after making addition of Rs. 66, 94,676/- (LTCG Claimed exempt

PREM DEVI BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE, C-SCHEME

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

delay of 122 days is condoned, and the appeal admitted for adjudication. 4. At the time of hearing, before commencing the submissions of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that he did not wish to press Ground No. 7 raised in relation to the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No. 7 raised

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

penny stock M/S. Eins Edutech Limited. Thus the AO instead of blindly following the report of investigation wing must have looked into surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities as decided by the Court in CIT vs. Durga Prasad then the AO must have realized that

PARASMAL BHANDARI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Making The Impugned Addition & Not Providing Any Opportunity Of Cross Examination Which Is In Gross Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice.

delay is condoned. 3.1 At the very outset of the hearing, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that present case of the assessee is covered by M/s. Channel Nine Entertainment Ltd. whose shares have been sold by the assessee and earned long term capital gain has been doubted by the AO and thus the AO made

KUSUM AGARWAL,AJMER vs. ITO WARD 2(1), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

penny stock. Consequently, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2019 in response to which the assessee filed Return of Income on 30.04.2019 declaring total income of Rs.6,17,710/-. Notices were issued and replies were filed however, the AO felt dissatisfied and finally made addition of the entire amount of Rs.5,86,125/- alleging as bogus entry of sale

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 3 days in filling this appeal in the interest of justice. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is an Individual and is engaged in export of gems & jewellery after purchasing it from local market under the name & style of M/s S Naveen Jewellers. The assesses had filed return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condone the delay of 3 days in filling this appeal in the interest of\njustice.\n6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the\nassessee is an Individual and is engaged in export of gems & jewellery\nafter purchasing it from local market under the name & style of M/s S\nNaveen Jewellers. The assesses had filed return

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

condoned. 3 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Nandi International and engaged in import and trading of Glass Chaton, Glass beads and silver jewellery. The assessee filed his return of income on 27/09/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 9,01,270/-. The case

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)

penny stock company. Recording this fact ld. AO went on discussing the methodology and analysis of the Yamini Investment he issued a show cause notice to the assessee requiring him to show cause as to why the exempt income claimed u/s. 10(38) of the Act may not be treated as income of the assessee under the grab of accommodation

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)

penny stock company. Recording this fact ld. AO went on discussing the methodology and analysis of the Yamini Investment he issued a show cause notice to the assessee requiring him to show cause as to why the exempt income claimed u/s. 10(38) of the Act may not be treated as income of the assessee under the grab of accommodation