INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MAN MOHAN MITTAL, BEAWAR

In the result, the cross objection so raised by the assessee is rejected

Section 145(3) of the Act. In this regard our reference was drawn to the 8 ITA No. 764/JP/2018 & CO No. 24/JP/2018 ITO vs. Shri Man Mohan Mittal various findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order as under:- “Finding of the AO (a) Thus, considering the entire facts of the case it is relevant from the records

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 40(a)(ia) provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are generally allowed under the general section. The computation u/s.29 has to be made u/s.145 on the basis of books of account regularly maintained by the assessee which the Assessing Officer did by estimating the profit at 5% of the sales. The learned Counsel

RAJESH KUMAR POONIA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145(3) of the Act and rejecting books of Accounts without pointing out any specific discrepancy in the books of accounts:- The A.O. has during the Course of hearing has rejected the Books of Accounts by recording the following reasons :- Rajesh Kumar Poonia vs. ACIT ‘the books so produced during the examination were prepared after survey proceedings, hence

RAJESH KUMAR POONIA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHUNJHUNU

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145(3) of the Act and rejecting books of Accounts without pointing out any specific discrepancy in the books of accounts:- The A.O. has during the Course of hearing has rejected the Books of Accounts by recording the following reasons :- Rajesh Kumar Poonia vs. ACIT ‘the books so produced during the examination were prepared after survey proceedings, hence

MOHD. CONST. CO.,KOTA vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

Depreciation) on total contract receipt of Rs.17,35,96,602/- and made trading addition of Rs.16,32,681/-. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: “I have carefully considered the written submission and objections of the assessee in respect of invoking of provision of section 145

KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: or at the time of hearing of

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against this order passed by ld.AO, assessee decided to file an appeal before CIT(A) wherein ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of the assessee’s books of accounts and invoking the provisions provided u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act”). However

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

145(3) the assessment is required to be in the manner under Section 144 of the Act only. However, it is well known that in the case of Best Judgment where resort is taken to Section 144, the Assessing Officer exercising his jurisdiction cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. The assessment must proceed on judicial considerations in the light of relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER vs. SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 145 of the Act, ipso facto does not confer blind powers upon the A.O. to make additions and in our view, the A.O. is not had liberty to assess the income of the assessee at 32 ITA 1271/JP/2018 & CO 42/JP/2018_ ITO Vs Sh. Bhagchand Jain whatever figures he wants. The A.O. is bound to make an honest estimation

M/S R.G. COLONIZERS PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 136/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 M/S R.G. Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Cuke D.C.I.T., 4, Tirupati Trade Centre, S.C. Vs. Circle-3, Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacr 8269 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 06/08/2021 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Rejection Of Books Of Account By Applying The Provisions Of Sec. 145(3). 2. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Action Of Ao In Applying N.P. Rate Of 8% On Total Receipts Of Rs. 18,63,73,549/-, Thereby Computing The Business Income At Rs. 78,42,549/- (18,63,73,549*8%-70,67,877 Depreciation) As Against Net Loss Of Rs. 68,43,810/- Computed By The Assessee)

section 145(3) and applied n.p. rate of 8% on the total turnover and thus, assessed the 8 ITA 136/JP/2021_ M/s R.G. Colonizers P Ltd. Vs DCIT business income after allowing the depreciation

PRADEEP KUMAR HIMMATRAMKA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ao & No Defect Whatsoever Was Pointed Out In The Same, Thus The Observation Of The Ao & Ld. Cit(A) That The Assessee Has Not Maintained Stock Records Deserves To Be Excluded & Ignored

Section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Appellant prays the rejection of books of account may please be held bad in law. 2 Shri Pradeep Kumar Himmatramka vs. ITO, Ward- 2 , Jhunjhunu . 1.1 That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating the fact that assessee has maintained day today stock records which were produced before

HARBANS LAL SETHI,JAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

sections. The computation under s. 29 is to be made under s. 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are not correct or complete, the ITO may reject those books and estimate the income to the best of his judgment. When such an estimate is made it is in substitution

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

Section 145(3) and made 20% disallowance which comes to Rs.60,70,716/- being unverifiable expenses and thus made the addition in the hands of the assessee which in first appeal the ld. CIT(A) reduced the expenses to the extent of 10% and thus restrict addition at Rs.30,35,358/-. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee

M/S DREAMAX INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145 would not apply to the instant case. 3.1 Ground No. 2 relates to confirming the addition of Rs. 28,68,475/- on estimation basis by applying NP rate of 8% subject to depreciation

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43/[1992] 65 Taxman 420. The depreciation being notional expenditure will not fall under the expression 'actually applied' as held by the Apex Court in the case

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)

depreciation. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and no notice u/s 143(2) was issued. Thereafter AO after approval from competent authority- initiated reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 on 28-03- 2019 after recording reasons. As the revenue was having the information which was received from Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Jaipur vide his office letter

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: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.453/Jp/2024 On The Following Grounds; “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,33,606/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Shown Bogus Purchase Of Rs 1,73,34,424/- During The Year From A Bogus Concern. 3

depreciation. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and no notice u/s 143(2) was issued. Thereafter AO after approval from competent authority- initiated reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 on 28-03- 2019 after recording reasons. As the revenue was having the information which was received from Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Jaipur vide his office letter

SHASHI KANT KHETAN,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

145(3) of Income Tax Act and estimated the income of the assessee by applying section 144 of Income Tax Act. The rejection of books of account does not give unfettered power to assess the income of a person. Section 144 of Income Tax Act provides best judgment assessment meaning thereby the A.O. is bound to assess a fair income

JANTA CONSTRUCTION CO.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 145(3) of the Act are invoked then only gross profit could have been estimated. In assessee’s case the income declared for the year under consideration was in conformity with past history of assessee. In assessee’s own case 8% N.P. applied subject to depreciation