M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

249/-against gross profit of Rs. 3,96,69,455/- shown by the appellant in regular return of income, thereby resulting in trading addition of Rs.1,38,16,794/-. As in the regular assessment the A.O has already enhanced the turnover to Rs. 4,43,99,166/-. Therefore, the further addition of Rs. 90,87,083/- is sustained. Hence

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

disallowed in assessment order." 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. Earlier, the present appeal of the assessee has also been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 02/12/2019 for want of prosecution. Against the order of the ITAT, the assessee has filed

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

249-274/Vol-2. Appeal filed by the revenue before Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur was dismissed. Copy of the order of Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur is at PB page 275-277/ Vol-2. (iii) AY 2017-18 The assessment of immediate preceding year AY 2017-18 was completed u/s 143(3) wherein no addition u/s 14A was made. The copy

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

disallowed. 6. That, the Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate the fact that that the amount of Rs. 13,92,83,709/- on which TDS was deducted is not entirely the amount of payment of foreign interest. Because out of Rs. 13,92,83,709/-, an amount of Rs 11,70,05,416 was paid as a Fees for Technical Services

M/S. OM SHIV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of I.T. Act. 2. That order of CIT (A) was served on 9.2.2020 and due to poor medical condition of appellant and looking to severe spread of COVID-19 the appeal could not be submitted within stipulated time of 60 days which expired on 9.4.2020 and this period falls in Lockdown period. Thus after removal

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

249(4)(b). However, the fact of filing of return of income and payment of tax was placed on record. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please 15 SDC Construction, Jaipur. be granted by quashing the entire order passed being against the principles of natural

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) being contrary to provisions of law and facts may be kindly deleted in full. 7. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the charging interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

3 of the paper book] wherein there was not specified allegation as to under which limb they intend to levy the penalty. He also supported the case law on the argument that was advanced before us. 8. The ld DR on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145(3) than making the adhoc addition is bad in law. Reliance is also placed on the following cases: 252 ITR 476 DCIT Vs. Adinath Industries (Guj.) 13 M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. Held, that the Assessing Officer could have unearthed the fact that the seller was a bogus party by recording the statement of the bank manager, accountant

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. NIRMAL GLASSTECH INDUSTRIES, JAIPUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s

3 ACIT Vs. M/s Nirmal Glasstech Section 68 of the Act. However, confirmed the addition made on account of deduction U/s 80IB of the Act and restricted the disallowance of Rs. 2.00 lacs out of Rs. 3.00 lacs as made on disallowance of lump sum trading addition. 6. Now the revenue is in appeal and the assessee

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

249 as against claim of Rs.6,24,99,589 in AY 2017-18. Around 42% of\nsalary claim was found genuine and reasonable in AY 2017-18 and remaining 58%\nwas disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs\n4,57,76,644 is not for the purpose of activities of the trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MAHATMA GANDHI CHARITABLE SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for Statistical purposes with no order as to cost

3, the disallowance of interest amount of Rs. 1,40,634/- worked out on this payment is also upheld. These grounds of appeal are dismissed. As regards Ground No. 4, on perusal of the overall facts and the provisions of the Act, I find that the assessee society is registered under the Rajasthan Society Act and also registered u/s 12AA

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

3) of the Act. However, later on the AO discovered that additional depreciation is not allowed since the assessee is involved into mining industry and not manufacturing anything and applied the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Lucky Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In our view the provisions of Section 154 of the Act allows

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)

disallowance and deleting the said addition of Rs.63,95,407. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of making addition of Rs. 4,24,14,300 u/s 69. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and against

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

disallowance of Rs. 13,07,007/- was deleted. b) The ld CIT(A) rejected the books of account by invoking section 145(3) of I.Tax Act by holding that assessee failed to furnish credible evidence in support of the source of cash deposited during the demonetization, hence the books of account of assessee are not reliable. (Page 38 of order

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

disallowance of Rs.1,38,95,995/- u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act (and the total reassessed income of Rs.\n5,97,80,77,790/-). However, this was followed by a notice u/s 263 with\nreference to the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 of the\nAct dated 26.03.2015 on the ground that a further amount of sales

TANUJ JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-7(2),JPR, JAIPUR

3. Rs. 1,76,250/-: The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts in confirming the additions made by the AO of Rs. 1,76,250/-on account of HRA allowance claimed by assessee. Thus, impugned disallowance which being completely contrary to the provisions of law and facts may kindly be deleted in full

M/S TRIVENI QUALITY MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3 M/s. TriveniQuality Minerals Pvt Ltd., Jaipur. before it was detected by the AO, then the case of the assessee would not fall under the category of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering reported