ITO, JAIPUR vs. RADAHA GOVIND BUILD ESTATE PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

Section 150 (2) of the Act, and (c) In further directing u/s 150 (1) to A.O. to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in case of appellant company for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2014-15 for alleged significant suppression in sales without any cogent material or evidence. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) is wrong and has erred

RADHA GOVIND BUILDESTATE P. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

Section 150 (2) of the Act, and (c) In further directing u/s 150 (1) to A.O. to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in case of appellant company for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2014-15 for alleged significant suppression in sales without any cogent material or evidence. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) is wrong and has erred

ITO, JAIPUR vs. RADAHA GOVIND BUILD ESTATE PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

Section 150 (2) of the Act, and (c) In further directing u/s 150 (1) to A.O. to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in case of appellant company for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2014-15 for alleged significant suppression in sales without any cogent material or evidence. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) is wrong and has erred

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

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va): Not pressed. Trading Addition in A.Y. 2015-16: Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a private limited company and a survey action u/s 133A was carried out at its factory premises on 17.12.2014. During the course of survey, stock verification was done by survey team

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va): Not pressed. Trading Addition in A.Y. 2015-16: Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a private limited company and a survey action u/s 133A was carried out at its factory premises on 17.12.2014. During the course of survey, stock verification was done by survey team

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va): Not pressed. Trading Addition in A.Y. 2015-16: Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a private limited company and a survey action u/s 133A was carried out at its factory premises on 17.12.2014. During the course of survey, stock verification was done by survey team

BHARAT ASSOCIATES,BUNDI vs. ACIT (OSD), BUNDI

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbharat Associates, Gayatri Nagar, Bundi, Bundi 323001. Pan No. Aamfb 3655N ..... Appellant Vs.

133A of the Act. The assessee declared Rs. 97,21,000/- during the survey operations, but the assessee in its return declared an undisclosed income of Rs. 97,21,000/-and claimed expenses on account of construction amounting to Rs. 62,28,497/-. The case of the assessee was selected under the category of compulsory scrutiny as the assessee

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

133A of the Act, without any\nindependent corroborative evidence or material substantiating such addition, is legally\nunsustainable and devoid of merit. The settled position of law, consistently upheld by\nvarious judicial forums including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts, and\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunals, categorically holds that statements obtained during\nsurvey operations lack evidentiary value and cannot independently justify

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 57(iii) of the\nAct. We thus decline to interfere with the action of the Assessing\nOfficer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nIn view of the above, this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.\nGround No. 4\nThe Id. AO has disallowed of deduction claimed under chapter VI-A of\nthe I.T. Act, amounting to Rs. 150000/- after observing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

section 145(3) of the Act. As regards the delivery of goods the assessee did not furnish any sauda note and or contract and the invoice after 10 months is just to cover up the out of sales made by the assessee. Ld. AO has in detailed worked out the negative stock and the same was confronted to the assessee

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

section 147/143(3) dated 17.12.2018, and the merged order dated 25.02.2019 u/s 154 of IT Act, 1961 and direct a fresh assessment to be made in accordance with provisions of law.” 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the finding recorded by the ld. PCIT, Central, Jaipur in an order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred the present appeal challenging

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

133A of the Act\nwas carried out on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group, of\nwhich the assessee is a member. Action was conducted on 28.7.2016.\nThen, notice under section 153C of the Act was issued on 20.9.2016.\nNotice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on\n18.10.2018.\n10. Further, as per case

PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

47. As a result, ITA No

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

133A of the Act was carried out on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group, of which the assessee is a member. Action was conducted on 28.7.2016. Then, notice under section 153C of the Act was issued on 20.9.2016. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.10.2018. 10. Further, as per case

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S MANGLAM BUILD DEVELOPERS LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 133A does not empower any income tax authority to examine any person on oath and thus any such statement has no evidentiary value. Hence, statement recorded in survey can’t be basis for making addition. Secondly, he submitted that the statement is required to be considered in totality & other material available on record and not in isolation. In this

SH. GOPAL SINGH SUNDA,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133A of the Act was carried out\nby the Income Tax Department on the members of Prince Group Sikar\non 10-03-2018 of which the assessee is one of the members. The\njurisdiction over the case was assigned to Central Circle - 2, Jaipur by\nthe Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III, Jaipur by means of an\nOrder

SH. GOPAL SINGH SUNDA,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133A of the Act was carried out\nby the Income Tax Department on the members of Prince Group Sikar\n2\non 10-03-2018 of which the assessee is one of the members. The\njurisdiction over the case was assigned to Central Circle - 2, Jaipur by\nthe Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III, Jaipur by means of an\nOrder

SH. GOPAL SINGH SUNDA ,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133A of the Act was carried out\nby the Income Tax Department on the members of Prince Group Sikar\non 10-03-2018 of which the assessee is one of the members. The\njurisdiction over the case was assigned to Central Circle - 2, Jaipur by\nthe Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III, Jaipur by means of an\nOrder