INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

10. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) The powers given to the Income-tax Officer under s. 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, however wide, do not entitle him to base the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material.An assessment under : 9.23(3)of the Act cannot

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

xv) Further, similar view is also taken in the following judgments, including by Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur, in many cases: (a) Prateek Kothari Vs. ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015. (b) PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 152 DTR 153 26 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. (c) Vijay Kumar D Agarwal V/s DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

xv) Further, similar view is also taken in the following judgments, including by Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur, in many cases: (a) Prateek Kothari Vs. ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015. (b) PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 152 DTR 153 26 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. (c) Vijay Kumar D Agarwal V/s DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

xv) Further, similar view is also taken in the following judgments, including by Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur, in many cases: (a) Prateek Kothari Vs. ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015. (b) PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 152 DTR 153 26 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. (c) Vijay Kumar D Agarwal V/s DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

xv) Further, similar view is also taken in the following judgments, including by Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur, in many cases: (a) Prateek Kothari Vs. ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015. (b) PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 152 DTR 153 26 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. (c) Vijay Kumar D Agarwal V/s DCIT

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

section 2(24)(x) of the Act 2. Perusal of the record also shows that one of the main reasons for selection of the case for complete scrutiny was "large outwards remittances by the assessee and to check as to whether appropriate 9 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT provisions of withdrawal have been complied with." This was basically for examining

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

xv) of sub-section (2) shall be deemed to authorize the allowance of any sum paid on account of any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation or assessed at a proportion of or otherwise on the basis of any such profits or gains….” [Emphasis added] Shree Cement Limited, Beawar

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

disallowing set off of losses of company CML and made additions High Court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessments under section 153A relying on some information not unearthed during search, assessment orders so passed were not sustainable in law - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be granted - Held, yes [Para

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

disallowing set off of losses of company CML and made additions High Court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessments under section 153A relying on some information not unearthed during search, assessment orders so passed were not sustainable in law - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be granted - Held, yes [Para

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

disallowing set off of losses of company CML and made additions High Court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessments under section 153A relying on some information not unearthed during search, assessment orders so passed were not sustainable in law - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be granted - Held, yes [Para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. NASH FASHION(INDIA) LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

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

XV, Issue 11 NPO TAXATION-CONTRIBUTION IN KIND view of the conflicting opinions expressed by the various High Courts, the Parliament intervened and added Explanation 5 to section 80G by the Finance Act, 1976. After the insertion of the aforesaid Explanation, there cannot be any doubt that, for purposes of claiming deduction, only cash amounts which may have been donated

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

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

XV, Issue 11 NPO TAXATION-CONTRIBUTION IN KIND view of the conflicting opinions expressed by the various High Courts, the Parliament intervened and added Explanation 5 to section 80G by the Finance Act, 1976. After the insertion of the aforesaid Explanation, there cannot be any doubt that, for purposes of claiming deduction, only cash amounts which may have been donated

SHRI RUPAL JAIAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

disallowed the exempt income u/s 10(38) of the act and treated the Income from other source u/s 68 of the act and also made addition of Rs 50,418/- ie 2% of Rs 25,20,930/-, Commission paid on acquiring the accommodation entries which completely based on assumption and presumption. x. That further Id. CIT(A), vide order dated

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

xv)\nCopy of Form 35 filed before NFAC\n316-319\n(xvi)\nCopy of Reply filed before ld.CIT(A) NFAC\n320-321\n(xvii)\nCopy of Circular No. 37/2016\n322-323\n(xviii)\nCopy of Acknowledgement of Return of Income filed for .A.Y.\n2017-18\n324\n(xix)\nCopy of Computation of Total Income for A.Y. 2017-18\n325

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

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

section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nwas carried out on 13.06.2019 at the various premises of Dewan Group.\n14\nITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025\nDCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others\nAssessment in the case of assessee was completed u/s 153A of the I.T. Act,\n1961 on 21.09.2021 and from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 13.06.2019 at the various premises of Dewan Group. 14 ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others Assessment in the case of assessee was completed u/s 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 21.09.2021 and from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 13.06.2019 at the various premises of Dewan Group. 14 ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others Assessment in the case of assessee was completed u/s 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 21.09.2021 and from

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

xv) Referring to the above judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32 (2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib) as under- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden