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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowed. 4.7 A survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted at shop no 106-107 in the Balaji tower occupied by the assessee jointly with Shri Radhey Shyam Khandelwal and Shri Manoj Gupta. During that proceeding of survey Annexure – B Exhibit-4 page no. 1 to 59 were impounded. These papers were allotment letters of residential scheme of Rajhans

SANDEEP KHERADA,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144A of the IT Act itself appears to be an afterthought. Instead of giving attention to the show cause notice and participating in the adjudication, the petitioner appears to have been ill-advised to venture out in filing the above application. 53. Further, the cash was not found under the control and the possession of the said Mr.S.Srinivasan

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

disallowance of interest expenditure.\n8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has\nerred in confirming the addition of Rs.17,02,666/-on account of undisclosed\nbrokerage income on assumption basis.\n9. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has\nerred in confirming the addition of Rs.10

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

disallowance of interest expenditure.\n8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has\nerred in confirming the addition of Rs.17,02,666/-on account of undisclosed\nbrokerage income on assumption basis.\n9. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has\nerred in confirming the addition of Rs.10

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144A should be invoked in suitable cases. vii. To prevent the roving and fishing enquiries, such cases should be picked up for review and inspection by administrative authorities. In my case, the ld AO has not converted the limited scrutiny to full scrutiny but made queries not related to issue in limited scrutiny and made disallowance. The addition

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

disallowance of Rs. 9,41,075/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act.\n9. On culmination of the assessment proceedings, the Id. PCIT called for the assessment records for examination as per provision of section 263 of the Act. Ld. PCIT upon examination noted that as per concluding remark in para 5 of assessment order on page 163 to184, the assessee

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

disallowance of Rs. 9,41,075/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act.\n9. On culmination of the assessment proceedings, the Id. PCIT called\nfor the assessment records for examination as per provision of section 263\nof the Act. Ld. PCIT upon examination noted that as per concluding remark\nin para 5 of assessment order on page 163 to184, the assessee

SHRI HARISH KUMAR JASORIA,ALWAR vs. PR.CIT, , ALWAR

disallowed. Assessee preferred appeal against such order before the ld. CIT(A) who has partly allowed the grounds taken by the assessee on this issue vide order dt. 26.9.2018 after thorough analysis of the facts. After the order of ld. CIT(A), the CIT(Adm.) has invoked the provisions of section 263 and issued the first notice on 5.4.2019 alleging

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

144A of the Act wherein the Addl. CIT considered that\napplication filed before the ITSC is rejected and direction from the Delhi\nHigh Court that material owned by M/s. R. T. Industries cannot be\naccepted. Therefore, Id. AO noted that it is solely related to M/s. RT\nIndustries cannot be accepted and made an addition

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. UNIMAX BUILDESTATE PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the\nassessee are dismissed

144A\nof the Act may be invoked in suitable cases. To prevent possibility of fishing and\nroving enquiries in such cases, it is desirable that these cases should invariably\nbe picked up while conducting Review or Inspection by the administrative\nauthorities.\n7. The above Instruction shall be applicable from the date of its issue and would\ncover the cases selected

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Income Tax Act. This amount comes to Rs.17,298/- and the AO failed to add this sum of Rs.17,298/- to the total income of the assessee. Thus the ld. PCIT observed that in view of the above facts the order

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

disallowance so sustained is bad in law and bad on facts. 10. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of Id. AO in not properly determining income on the basis of the financial statements submitted by treating the same as a charitable trust. 11. The interest charged u/s 234A, 234B

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

disallowance so sustained is bad in law and bad on facts. 10. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of Id. AO in not properly determining income on the basis of the financial statements submitted by treating the same as a charitable trust. 11. The interest charged u/s 234A, 234B