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)

section 260A ibid, would not again de novo hold yet another factual inquiry with a view to find out as to whether the explanation offered by the assessee and which found acceptance to the Tribunal is good or bad, or whether it was rightly accepted, or not. It is only when the factual finding recorded had been entirely de hors

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance out of the expenses claimed, which is not correct as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab- Haryana High Court in the case of The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dulla Ram on 22 October, 2013 in which the Hon'ble High Court held: 22 October, 201 MEN "The revenue has filed an appeal, under Section 260A

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing half per cent commission to the sister concern of the assessee during the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant is also not in a M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. position to point out how the assessee evaded payment of tax by the alleged payment of higher commission to its sister

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing half per cent commission to the sister concern of the assessee during the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant is also not in a M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. position to point out how the assessee evaded payment of tax by the alleged payment of higher commission to its sister

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)

section 260A ibid, would not again de novo hold yet another factual inquiry with a view to find out as to whether the explanation offered by the assessee and which found acceptance to the Tribunal is good or bad, or whether it was rightly accepted, or not. It is only when the factual finding recorded had been entirely de hors

BIRBAL RAM RAJENDRA POONIA &PARTY,C/O G. MEHTA AND CO. vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees above are dismissed with above directions

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbirbal Ram Rajendra Poonia & Party, Party A-51, Hanuman Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur 302 012 Pan No. Aaaab 3118M ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowance from expenses, assessing the total income at Rs. 1,25,53,918/-. 6. Before, we analyse the actions of the AO and ld. CIT (A), it is our utmost duty being final fact finding authority to examine, whether the assessee was cooperative and complying before the authorities below, in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High

RAJA RAM RAJENDRA BHANDARI &PARTY ,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees above are dismissed with above directions

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbirbal Ram Rajendra Poonia & Party, Party A-51, Hanuman Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur 302 012 Pan No. Aaaab 3118M ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowance from expenses, assessing the total income at Rs. 1,25,53,918/-. 6. Before, we analyse the actions of the AO and ld. CIT (A), it is our utmost duty being final fact finding authority to examine, whether the assessee was cooperative and complying before the authorities below, in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High

NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

section 28— (iii) the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession : [Provided that any amount of the interest paid, in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business 7 ITA No. 1037/JP/2016. Shir Neeraj Purohit, Jaipur. or profession (whether capitalised in the books

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

260A to the Bombay High Court, the High Court found, after narrating the facts, that no substantial question of law arises. 4. We are of the view, in accordance with the view of the High Court, that no substantial question of law arises. Further, though it was vehemently argued by Shri Devansh A. Mohta, learned counsel appearing for the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

260A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains\nIncome arising from transfer of long term securities (Conditions precedent)\n Assessment year 2014-15 - For relevant year, assessee filed her return claiming\nexemption under section 10(38) in respect of capital gains arising from sale of shares\nBoth lower authorities had disallowed

M/S GIE JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowance. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter and/or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 2. The assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of manufacturing, exports of silver and Gold jewellery as well as precious and semi precious stones. During the assessment proceedings completed

MODERN INSULATORS LIMITED,ABU ROAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

disallowance of Rs. 22,81,168/- towards late deposit of employees contribution to PF. The said action is illegal and unjustified. 3. Apropos ground no. the appellant challenged the order of the Ld. CIT (A) that the learned CIT-A has erred in relying upon various cases without providing any opportunity to assessee to give his explanation thereto. The action

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 260A (set aside) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 2 Dinesh Haldia vs. DCIT “I That the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in sustaining addition u/s. 69C of the I.T. Act made by the AO at Rs. 13,00,000/- in the total income