SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

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

M/S. ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD VILLAGE POST-PATAN, TEHSIL-KISHANGARH, DISTRICT-AJMER,KISHANGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

section 69A of the Act on Rs. 1,77,95,859/- reflecting turnover surrendered before the Central Excise Authorities and in granting benefit of brought forward of losses/depreciation. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax u/s. 3 M/s Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer

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

69A invites the consequences of Section 1158BE and surcharge provided under Section 2(9) of the Finance Act. 2016 When it stands enhanced from 01.04.2017, for every assessment carried out in that year, related to the previous year, the rates as applicable on 01.04.2017 has to be applied. There being no new liability created or obligation imposed, the arguments raised

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to\n153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\n\n5\n\nITA No. 1393/JPR/2024\nShri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur.\n\n2.2 The expression 'believe" in section 147 requires an objective satisfaction based on definite\nmaterial

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)

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

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

Depreciation of Rs. 77,85,895/-.\nTotaling Rs 81,58,486/- [PB 200-201].\n1.6. That the assessee Company's DTA Unit (Mahapura) rented the building and\nmachinery situated at Mahapura, Jaipur [PB 387-393] which was earlier\nowned by PinckcityColourstones Pvt. Ltd. during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to\nAY 2012-13 and started its own domestic Operations being

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

LISAMMA SEBASTIAN,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in this section and in section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) 5 LISAMMA SEBASTIAN VS ITO, WARD 2(2), KOTA Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

section 115BBE is not applicable. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following decisions:- Smt. Rekha Shekhawat Vs. PCIT (2022) 218 DTR 161 (Jaipur) (Trib.) In view of the fact that the unrecorded trade advances and cash in hand admitted during the course of survey u/s 133A emanated from and related to the real estate business carried

DILIP SINGH ,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU , JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 115BBE is to be taxed at special rate of the I.T. Act, 1961. In view of the above, the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 7.50,000/- are added to the income of the assessee uls 69A of the Act. I am satisfied that assessee has concealed particulars of his income. Therefore, penalty proceedings

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

69A of the Act. This\namount was found from the residence of the assessee at the time of search. The AO\nhas made this addition on the ground that the assessee could not explain the reason\nfor which he could not verify the same with cash book during the search period\nitself. The ld. A/R of the assessee submitted that

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\r\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\r\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\"\r\n27. It is established principle of interpretation of statutes, that the Parliament is\r\npresumed to be not extravagant, in using the words

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by\nAssessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim for\ncarry forward of depreciation

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by\nAssessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim for\ncarry forward of depreciation

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 69A—CIT(A)\naffirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with\nregard to claim for carry forward of depreciation