RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2018-19 respectively. The grounds raised by the assesseein all these appeals are common except with variance in figures, therefore, for the sake of convenience. Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. 2. In ITA No. 672/JPR/2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- ITA NO. 672/JP/2024

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section\n250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2018-19\nrespectively. The grounds raised by the assesseein all these appeals are common\nexcept with variance in figures, therefore, for the sake of convenience.\n2\nITA Nos.669 to 672/JPR/2024\nResonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota.\n2.\nIn ITA No. 672/JPR/2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

153D have prevalence over regular provisions for assessment or\nreassessment under sections 148 & 147/148 - Held, yes - Whether therefore, where\nbasis for initiation of section 148 proceedings in case of assessee was material seized\nrelating to or belonging to assessee during search conducted on ‘M' Group, notices\nissued under section 148 and impugned orders rejecting objections filed to issuance of\nnotice

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

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 69C in respect of unaccounted purchases and to thereby disallow 100% of unaccounted purchases of Rs. 1,28,11,487/-, which is against the settled legal position, according to which only profit earned on sale of such unaccounted goods could be disallowed and not the entire purchases. 2.1 That, Id. PCIT has further erred in disregarding the profit worked

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

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

153D have prevalence over regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under sections 148 & 147/148 - Held, yes - Whether therefore, where basis for initiation of section 148 proceedings in case of assessee was material seized relating to or belonging to assessee during search conducted on ‘M’ Group, notices issued under section 148 and impugned orders rejecting objections filed to issuance of notice

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A r.wrule 8D in respect of total finance cost\nincurred at Rs. 86,73,560/- by ignoring the submission filed by the\nassessee that entire finance cost is incurred on specified and\nidentifiable items and no part of the finance cost is directly related to\ninvestment made in shares and therefore in absence of any\nexpenditure no disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction of interest payment claimed by the appellant In this ground of appeal the appellant has contended that a perusal of Page-3 of assessment order reveals that addition with respect to unsecured loans taken by the assessee has been prompted on the basis of a search and seizure action carried out at "Banka Group of Kolkata

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SUPREME POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the results the appeal of the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

153D and Section 148 are different. Applicability of Section 153C in cases where the seized material related to or belonged to person other than on whom search is conducted or requisition made does not render Section 148 otiose. Section 148 shall continue to apply to the regular proceedings and also in cases where no incriminating material is seized during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowed the deduction of\ninterest payment claimed by the appellant\nIn this ground of appeal the appellant has contended that a perusal of Page-3 of\nassessment order reveals that addition with respect to unsecured loans taken by\nthe assessee has been prompted on the basis of a search and seizure action\ncarried out at \"Banka Group of Kolkata

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowed the deduction of\ninterest payment claimed by the appellant\nIn this ground of appeal the appellant has contended that a perusal of Page-3 of\nassessment order reveals that addition with respect to unsecured loans taken by\nthe assessee has been prompted on the basis of a search and seizure action\ncarried out at \"Banka Group of Kolkata

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

disallowed the deduction of\ninterest payment claimed by the appellant\n\nIn this ground of appeal the appellant has contended that a perusal of Page-3 of\nassessment order reveals that addition with respect to unsecured loans taken by\nthe assessee has been prompted on the basis of a search and seizure action\ncarried out at \"Banka Group of Kolkata

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the\ncross objection of the assessee are allowed

section 69A of the Act cannot be made in respect of\nthose assets/monies/entries which are recorded in the assessee's books of\naccount. The cash sales as part of the trading result offered for taxation by the\nassessee is not disputed, the addition made on account of cash deposit during\ndemonetization without rejection of books of account

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

section 69A of the Act, is not applicable for business receipts because said receipts are duly recorded in the books of account, reported to service tax authorities and supported with necessary bills & receipts with corresponding students undergoing coaching. The cash receipts declared by the assessee are supported with necessary details. Therefore, from the above, it is undisputedly clear that genuineness

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

153D have prevalence over regular\nprovisions for assessment or reassessment under sections 148 & 147/148 - Held,\nyes - Whether therefore, where basis for initiation of section 148 proceedings in\ncase of assessee was material seized relating to or belonging to assessee during\nsearch conducted on ‘M' Group, notices issued under section 148 and impugned\norders rejecting objections filed to issuance of notice

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

153D have\nprevalence over regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under\nsections 148 & 147/148 - Held, yes - Whether therefore, where basis for initiation\nof section 148 proceedings in case of assessee was material seized relating to or\nbelonging to assessee during search conducted on 'M' Group, notices issued\nunder section 148 and impugned orders rejecting objections filed to issuance of\nnotice

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) v. Asst. CIT (supra). Besides