ANJU MEEL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

142A(7) rws section 153 (First provision Explanation 1(iv) of the prevailing provisions). In view of the above, the contention raised by the appellant is found to be acceptable and thus the action of the adopting the sale consideration as per market value is not correct. Therefore, the addition made by the AO to this extent is deleted

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

142A and ending with the date on\nwhich the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer”\nHence, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings will\nbecome time barred due to reference being made to Valuation Officer was not valid in\nlaw.\n31. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

142A and ending with the date on\nwhich the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer”\nHence, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings will\nbecome time barred due to reference being made to Valuation Officer was not valid in\nlaw.\n31. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders

M/S SOMA BLOCK PRINTS (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

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

142A(2) the AO may make a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. Therefore it is clear that even if AO is completely satisfied with the correctness of the accounts of the assessee he can refer the case to Valuation

M/S. BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

disallowances made in the order dated 30.03.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be deleted. 3.1 Rs.1,12,256/-: The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.11,500/-.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee earned capital gain from sale of inherited properties on 19-1-2012. The assessee e-filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 28.07.2012 declaring the total income of Rs. 13,98,900. The assessment was completed under section

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 68 Case pertains to Asst. Year 1966-67 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cash credits—Addition under s. 68—ITO can make addition under s. 68 as income from undisclosed sources, simultaneously with addition to trading results— However, assessee can claim the addition under s. 68 as covered by intangible additions to trading results—In the present case

HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowances. Against the assessment order assessee preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), who granted part relief and confirmed the following additions: (i) Unexplained expenses on Construction Rs. 51,26,562/- (ii) Unaccounted Miscellaneous expenses Rs. 45,000/- (iii) Unaccounted cash advance Rs. 70,000/- Rs.52,41,562/- Assessee has presented this appeal before the hon’ble bench against the additions