BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

natural justice. Hence, the intimation issued u/s 143(1), are illegal and should be quashed. GROUND NO. 1B: ADJUSTMENT FOR DISALLOWANCE

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

natural justice. Hence, the order passed u/s 143(1), us illegal. Accordingly, passing of the order under Section 143(1), making the adjustment of Rs. 86,97,076, is a mistake apparent on record and deserves to be rectified. GROUND ADJUSTMENT FOR DISALLOWANCE

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

disallowance of Rs.1.24 crores, the addition was ultimately made to the tune of Rs.4.265 crores violating of the principle of natural justice

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

disallowance of Rs.1.24 crores, the addition was ultimately made to the tune of Rs.4.265 crores violating of the principle of natural justice

M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

natural justice and not giving the opportunity of cross examination of the alleged accommodation entry providers, therefore the assessment order ought to held as bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 3. That the order of the Id CIT (A), confirming the addition made by the AO is arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, perverse, based on no evidence or irrelevant material

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

natural justice and not giving the opportunity of cross examination of the alleged accommodation entry providers, therefore the assessment order ought to held as bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 3. That the order of the Id CIT (A), confirming the addition made by the AO is arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, perverse, based on no evidence or irrelevant material

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

natural justice and not giving the opportunity of cross examination of the alleged accommodation entry providers, therefore the assessment order ought to held as bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 3. That the order of the Id CIT (A), confirming the addition made by the AO is arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, perverse, based on no evidence or irrelevant material

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

natural justice. In the impugned order it was held that the undisclosed stock of Rs. 1,77,95,858/- was required to be taxed u/s 69A of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act and the benefit of unabsorbed depreciation/loss were not to be given to the assessee appellant. In support, the reliance was placed on the Delhi

PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that\nrevenue stands dismissed

natural justice.\n4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in\nconsidering the sale deeds found during search belonging to firm M/s\nEminent Build Developers in the hands of the assessee. Action in the\nhands of the assessee deserves

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that\nrevenue stands dismissed

natural justice.\n4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in\nconsidering the sale deeds found during search belonging to firm M/s\nEminent Build Developers in the hands of the assessee. Action in the\nhands of the assessee deserves

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. JAMMU METALLIC OXIDES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA

justice and not giving the opportunity of cross examination of the alleged accommodation entry providers, therefore the assessment order ought to held as bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 3. That the order of the Id CIT (A), confirming the addition made by the AO is arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, perverse, based on no evidence or irrelevant material

M/S. JAMMU METALLIC OXIDES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

justice and not giving the opportunity of cross examination of the alleged accommodation entry providers, therefore the assessment order ought to held as bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 3. That the order of the Id CIT (A), confirming the addition made by the AO is arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, perverse, based on no evidence or irrelevant material

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. JAMMU METALLIC OXIDES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA

justice and not giving the opportunity of cross examination of the alleged accommodation entry providers, therefore the assessment order ought to held as bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 3. That the order of the Id CIT (A), confirming the addition made by the AO is arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, perverse, based on no evidence or irrelevant material

M/S. EDILA BUSINESS WORLD PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

justice and not giving the opportunity of cross examination of the alleged ITA Nos. 1050, 1051 & 1105/JP/2018 4 M/s Edila Business World Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT accommodation entry providers, therefore the assessment order ought to held as bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 3. That the order of the Id CIT (A), confirming the addition made

M/S. EDILA BUSINESS WORLD PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

justice and not giving the opportunity of cross examination of the alleged ITA Nos. 1050, 1051 & 1105/JP/2018 4 M/s Edila Business World Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT accommodation entry providers, therefore the assessment order ought to held as bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 3. That the order of the Id CIT (A), confirming the addition made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. EDILA BUSINESS WORLD PVT. LTD., KOTA

justice and not giving the opportunity of cross examination of the alleged ITA Nos. 1050, 1051 & 1105/JP/2018 4 M/s Edila Business World Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT accommodation entry providers, therefore the assessment order ought to held as bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 3. That the order of the Id CIT (A), confirming the addition made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED., KOTA

justice and not giving the opportunity of cross examination of the alleged accommodation entry providers, therefore the assessment order ought to held as bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 3. That the order of the Id CIT (A), confirming the addition made by the AO is arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, perverse, based on no evidence or irrelevant material

M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

justice and not giving the opportunity of cross examination of the alleged accommodation entry providers, therefore the assessment order ought to held as bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 3. That the order of the Id CIT (A), confirming the addition made by the AO is arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, perverse, based on no evidence or irrelevant material