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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed treating the same as assessee’s own unaccounted income in the guise of bogus LTCG. The AO accordingly assessed the total income Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur. of the assessee at Rs. 91,02,068/- under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961 by making addition of Rs. 81,84,838/- under section 69A read with

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowed The assessee also accepted Rs.\n75,00,000 as an advance in relation of transfer of capital asset. The assessee\nfailed to give a satisfactory reply and provide any required details. Hence, the\nA.O. completed the assessment and passed order u/s 147/1448 of the Income-\ntax Act dated 13.12.2019 Assessing total Income

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

disallowed the said amount u/s 37(1) as inadmissible expenditure. The action of the AO to invoke section 69A is not sustainable as the said expenditure has been incurred in the course of the business of the appellant. Accordingly ground no. 04 & 08 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

148 on 29.03.2022 by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is in contravention of provisions of section 144B(5) and section 151A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and also subsequent Notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes No. S.O 1466 (E) dated 29.03.2022. For ready reference provisions of section 144B(5), section 151A and CBDT Notification dated

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

148 of the Act was issued. Further, the\nappellant was not traceable also during the assessment proceedings therefore no\naffixure was made by the AO. Therefore, AO had no option but to complete the\nassessment u/s 144 of the Act. Hence, AO has rightly completed the assessment\nproceedings u/s 144 of the Act. Accordingly ground of appeal

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)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148, 148A(b) and 148A(d) have been carried by jurisdictional AO and not in a faceless manner as envisaged u/s 151A of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore the whole proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on Hexaware 18 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO Technologies Ltd. v/s ACIT and others (464 ITR 430) (Mumbai

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

148 deserves to be held bad in law.\n\nDepartmental Ground of Appeal No. 1:\n\nUnder this ground of appeal, the department has challenged the actions of Id.\nCIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.15,32,40,000/-, made by Id.AO u/s 68.\n\nBrief facts of the case, as narrated above, are that a search and seizure

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), 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 54/54F, hence, the investment made u/s 54 of Rs. 1,01,01,010/- was rightly disallowed. 18. To summarize, the appellant's share of land sold at Rs.2,75,77,251/- on which capital gain was not disclosed as per Act despite it being a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act as the property was situated within

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

section 148; assessee neither filed return of income\nnor responded—Assessing Officer ultimately by-passing assessment order made addition on\naccount of undisclosed cash deposits PNB'—Assessing Officer also disallowed

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, being not in accordance with the provisions of Section 151 of Income Tax Act 1961. The action of the ld. AO is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing such re-assessment proceedings. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 10(38) in respect of capital gains arising from sale of shares\nBoth lower authorities had disallowed assessee's claim for exemption on basis of\nevidence received from Investigation Wing as purchase and sale were found to be\nbogus Whether where Tribunal, after considering entire facts, had given a\ncategorical finding that assessee had produced all documentary evidence

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

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

148 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was served with questionnaire accompanied by notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. In reply thereto, the assessee put forth his version. 8. At page 41 and 42 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer made following observations which led him to the making of addition

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

148 of the Act were filed on 15.03.2022. Thus, the assessee deliberately delayed assessment proceeding. The ld. AO has made addition for Rs. 1,09,99,289/- to the returned income by disallowing loss incurred by the assessee in transaction on stock exchange. Further, the addition of Rs. 2,19,763/- has been made invoking provisions of section

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

section 148 seeking to reopen assessment for reasons that assessee had indulged in generating non genuine losses and profits by trading in illiquid stock options on Bombay Stock Exchange, since there was no allegation that assessee had earned any income which was not offered to tax, reasons recorded could not be used to form any reason to believe

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. HEM CHAND JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 148 is illegal and bad in law and the assessment order passed by the A.O. 13 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur pursuant to such notice is quashed. Thus, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. 6.2 So far as the appeal of the revenue is concerned, we noted that assessee is a regular investor

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

148 of the Act. Therefore, the amount of Rs.6,26,68,011/- received as sub contract receipts from DRAIPL remained unexplained and hence the amount received Rs.6,26,68,011/- added to the total income of the appellant as unexplained credits in the books of account under section 68 of the Income

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

148 of the Act. Therefore, the amount of Rs.6,26,68,011/- received as sub contract receipts from DRAIPL remained unexplained and hence the amount received Rs.6,26,68,011/- added to the total income of the appellant as unexplained credits in the books of account under section 68 of the Income

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P as per the provision\r\nof section 80AC of the Act.\r\n5. 1. Before moving further, let me first surface provision of section 80AC of the Act\r\nwhich comes into force from 01/04/2018. The provision of section 80AC is as under\r\n:-\r\n[Deduction not to be allowed unless return