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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

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 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission “Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 2: In ground of appeal No.1, assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of ld.AO in rejecting the books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section 145

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission “Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 2: In ground of appeal No.1, assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of ld.AO in rejecting the books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section 145

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 of Rs.27,411/-deserves to be deleted in toto. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in invoking provisions of section 145

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

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

disallowance of Rs.27,411/-deserves to be deleted in toto. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in invoking provisions of section 145

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

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

disallowance of Rs.27,411/-deserves to be deleted in toto. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in invoking provisions of section 145

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowance of 3 M/s Kanak Varindavan Resorts Ltd. vs. ITO expenses claimed by the appellant u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without pointing out any defect in the books of account regularly maintained by the appellant and duly audited, and without rejecting such books of account as required under section 145

DEEP JYOTI COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

section 145 of Act. Principles applicable with regard to the method of accounting can be summarized as under: (i) The accounts which are regularly maintained in the course of business and are duly audited, free from any qualification by the auditors, should normally be taken as correct unless there are adequate reasons to indicate that they are incorrect or unreliable

AMIT SINGH,BHIWADI (ALWAR) vs. DCIT, CPC- BENGALURU, CPC- BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowed a sum of Rs. 86,905!- being employees contribution to PF / ESI as the appellant failed to deposit the same within due dates specified in the respective Acts by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) nw.s. 2(24)(x) and provisions of section 43B are not applicable to the employees contribution to PF/ESI. To conclude, all the grounds

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

disallowances are arbitrary and cannot be upheld. R. Reliance can be placed on the case of M/S. Samwon Precision Mould Mfg India Pvt Ltd vs Ito, 2016(4) TMI 1094 –ITAT Delhi, It was held that the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account of the assesse Under Section 145

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

disallowances are arbitrary and cannot be upheld. R. Reliance can be placed on the case of M/S. Samwon Precision Mould Mfg India Pvt Ltd vs Ito, 2016(4) TMI 1094 –ITAT Delhi, It was held that the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account of the assesse Under Section 145

S R AGRO TECH,BEHROR vs. ITO, WARD, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 145(3) is invoked and a lump sum trading addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- is made to the total income of the assessee taking in to account all possible leakage on trading front. Accordingly, trading addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- is made to the total income of the assessee on estimate bases for the year under consideration

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

section 115BBE are not applicable on the addition made by ld.AO on account pf alleged unaccounted cash sales. Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT Brief facts pertaining to these grounds of appeal are that ld. AO has invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the act for the purpose of taxing the additions made to the returned income

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

section 115BBE are not applicable on the addition made by ld.AO on account pf alleged unaccounted cash sales. Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT Brief facts pertaining to these grounds of appeal are that ld. AO has invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the act for the purpose of taxing the additions made to the returned income

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

section 115BBE are not applicable on the addition made by ld.AO on account pf alleged unaccounted cash sales. Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT Brief facts pertaining to these grounds of appeal are that ld. AO has invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the act for the purpose of taxing the additions made to the returned income

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

section 115BBE are not applicable on the addition made by ld.AO on account pf alleged unaccounted cash sales. Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT Brief facts pertaining to these grounds of appeal are that ld. AO has invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the act for the purpose of taxing the additions made to the returned income