JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, the provisions of Section 115BBE are not attracted in this case. 10. In view of the above, the action of the lower authorities in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE on the surrender income of Rs. 15 lacs is set aside and the AO is directed to compute the said surrendered income under normal provisions

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 69.” • In the case of Bajaj Sons. Ltd., the Hon’ble Chandigarh Bench of ITAT, ITA No. 1127/CHD/2019, has stated as under: “The AO has not pointed out any unexplained credit in the books of account, any unexplained investment, any unexplained money, bullion or jewellery, any unexplained expenditure or any amount of loan repaid in the assessment order

M/S NAVJEEVAN TRADE & COMMODITIES P.LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result the same are treated as infructuous

69 read with section 115BBE of the Act. In the result, sole ground taken by the assessee is allowed.” 6 M/s Navjeevan Trade & Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 8. In the instant case, it is not disputed by the Revenue that the assessee has current year business losses including current year depreciation

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

69 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and that is why she hold the order of the Id. AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4.4 Ld. PCIT noted that the assessee has claimed finance / interest cost which attribute to the investment in the capital contribution to the partnership firm and Mutual fund. Thus

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation chart is available on paper book page no. 12. Hence the Learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition without going thought the deprecation chart submitted by the Learned Assessing Officer. 3. Provision of section 69

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BHIWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

section 69 is applicable\nwhen the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books\nof account. Here the assessee has disclosed this transaction in its books of\naccounts under the head fixed assets and also claimed depreciation

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

69, 694 698, 690 and 690. The same was amended by the 2nd Amendment Act wef 01.04.2017, enhancing the rate to 60%. Hence there was no new lability created 24 MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARRAF VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 JAIPUR and the rate of tax merely stood enhanced which is applicable to the assessments carried on in that year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak credit

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak credit

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak credit

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak credit

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak credit

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Section 32 (1) (iia) of Rs.3,53,65,893/- being additional depreciation and an addition of Rs.3,69,463/- due to transfer

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year.” 14. In the instant case, what is relevant is whether the income has escaped assessment by reason of failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

69,368/- has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 within the meaning of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. As such, it is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2010-11 (Ajay Kumar Gupta) Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward -1, Jaipur It is also noted that none

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,VIDYUT BHAWAN, JAN PATH, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, , JAIPUR

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

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

69,10,85,274/-. The change in accounting estimate of assets and depreciation attracts the provisions of section 115JB of the Act which

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 with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares

SHRI BALAJI INDUSTRIES ENGINEERING LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

depreciation which has been carried 3 M/s Shri Balaji Industrial Engineering Ltd. vs. ACIT forward. The assessee filed its revised return of income on 21.03.2015 in which undisclosed income of Rs. 65,00,000/- was also declared as surrendered vide letter dated 25.01.2013. The AO has completed the assessment on the revised return of income accepting the surrender income