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

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

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

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

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

145(3) is invoked in this case. In view of\nthe above discussion it is held that purchase of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from M/s Aadilmpex,\nM/s Sun Diam, M/s Arihant Exports and M/s Kriyalmpex Pvt Ltd. as discussed in above\nparas are bogus and treated as accommodation entries only. Therefore, addition made\nof 25% of the above purchase

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

FAUJDAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BHARATPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145(3), rejected books of account, applied higher net profit rate of 8.5 percent, although the Id. CIT(A) reduced it to 8 percent) and confirmed heavy additions to the total income of the assessee. In support of the net profit rate Assessment Years: 2018-19 declared by the assessee in its return of income

SHRI ANIL KUMAR GARG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

section 145(3). The issue of rejection of books of accounts is involved in the cross objection filed by the assessee, therefore, we deal with this issue while deciding the cross objection. Once, the books of accounts are rejected by the AO the only course of action left to the AO is to assess the income of the assessee

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation on leasehold rights u/s 32(1)(ii) being business or commercial right acquired during the year under consideration. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, necessary direction may be given to the A.O. to allow the claim of Deduction u/s 80-IA and 80-IC while computing book profit u/s 115JB

M/S HANUMAN TUBE WELL CO.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 145(3) is without any evidence/ material on record. 2 HANUMAN TUBEWELL COMPANY VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR 2. That the ld. Authorities below have grossly erred both in law and facts in applying NP Rate 8% subject to depreciation

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, KOTA vs. SHRI CHANDI RAM, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

145 (Chandigarh – Trib.) held- Section 143, read with section 139, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Assessment - General [Revised computation of income] – Assessment year 2007-08 – Whether when a notice under section 143(2) has been issued and proceedings of assessment under section 143(3) are in progress, assessee can put forth any claim for deduction or exemption or relief

INCOME TAX OFFICER , EXEMPTION, WARD, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

145(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as consistently followed is allowed. Regarding the provision of expenses, it is noted that the same is provided and adjusted from year to year and the amount shown in the Balance Sheet is the closing balance at the end of the year. Regarding the separate claim