SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133 taxmann.com283 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)\n[2003] 132 taxman 214 (SC)\n27-32\n33-34\n10. Per contra, Ld. DR has heavily relied on the findings of Id. CIT(A), Id.\nDR and submitted that the assessee-apparent received salary of Rs.\n29,86,963/- outside India as the Director of M/s Saket Gems (HK) Ltd.,\nHongkong during

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) was issued only & only in AY 2016-17 yet\nthe assessee filed the ROI in all other years. The AO intently avoided this fact.\n5B. Human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances also plays an important\nrole in the income tax proceedings as held in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT\n[1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC). In this

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) was issued only & only in AY 2016-17 yet\nthe assessee filed the ROI in all other years. The AO intently avoided this fact.\n5B. Human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances also plays an important\nrole in the income tax proceedings as held in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT\n[1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC). In this

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) was issued only & only in AY 2016-17 yet\nthe assessee filed the ROI in all other years. The AO intently avoided this fact.\n5B. Human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances also plays an important\nrole in the income tax proceedings as held in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT\n[1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC). In this

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) was issued only & only in AY 2016-17 yet\nthe assessee filed the ROI in all other years. The AO intently avoided this fact.\n5B. Human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances also plays an important\nrole in the income tax proceedings as held in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT\n[1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC). In this

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) was issued only & only in AY 2016-17 yet\nthe assessee filed the ROI in all other years. The AO intently avoided this fact.\n5B. Human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances also plays an important\nrole in the income tax proceedings as held in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT\n[1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC). In this

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

133(6) were also issued to M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd on 09.07.2013 & 05.10.2018 whose account was report as suspicious but the same were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remarks ‘ not known’ / ‘moved’. Thereafter, KYC of M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd was called for from the UCO Bank and it is noticed that the address given

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

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 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

AJD DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellant Hearing.”

disallowance cannot be added back to the income of assessee on this ground. Some of such decisions are: (i) Phool Singh Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITA no2901/Del/2014: It is held that Merely because 133(6) notices issued to the party returned un-served though it was the same address, which was supplied by supplier while filing its income tax return

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

133(6) issued by the ld. AO. Since the said notices were replied in part the ld. AO made the addition of Rs. 1,95,25,000/- in the hands of the assessee that identity, creditworthiness was not established and therefore was treated as unexplained u/s. 68 of the Act. 4 Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 4. Aggrieved from

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 133(6) of the Act cannot be sole basis for disallowance of purchases from these parties. 20 Durga Prasad

M/S. MAHALAXMI SAWS PVT. LTD., H-39, ROAD NO.2B, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SIRSI ROAD, BINDAYAKA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 131 by the suppliers cannot be the concern of the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that assessee was asked to produce the supplier. …………… ............ The assessing officer made the whole addition by pointing out certain lacunas in the bank account of the suppliers of the assessee, which cannot be permitted. Merely because 133(6) notices issued

NIRMAL KUMAR BARDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

133 taxmann.com 135 (Jaipur - Trib.) held that where amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI had been deposited with a delay of few days from due dates mentioned under respective statute, but on or before due date of filing of return under section 139(1), same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section

RMC GEMS INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

133 taxmann.com 135 (Jaipur - Trib.) held that where amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI had been deposited with a delay of few days from due dates mentioned under respective statute, but on or before due date of filing of return under section 139(1), same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related against the order passed under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 66,30,268/- under section

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

disallowance of Rs. 90,55,18,397/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste Management System. 78. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Pozzolana Portland Cement (PPC) and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). Apart from using gypsum and clinker as raw materials in the cement production, respondent also