DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ SHARMA, JAIPUR

145. 4. Further submitted due to instruction No. 8 of 2017 dated 29.09.2017 issued by CBDT for conducting assessment proceedings the Ld. AO vide letter No. ITBA/Com/F/17/2017-18/1006681108(1) dated 05.10.2017 has informed the assessee to intimate her intention to participate in assessment proceedings electronically. The assessee has filed his intention to pass the assessment order electronically

SMT. SAROJ SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

145. 4. Further submitted due to instruction No. 8 of 2017 dated 29.09.2017 issued by CBDT for conducting assessment proceedings the Ld. AO vide letter No. ITBA/Com/F/17/2017-18/1006681108(1) dated 05.10.2017 has informed the assessee to intimate her intention to participate in assessment proceedings electronically. The assessee has filed his intention to pass the assessment order electronically

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)

Properties (P.) Ltd. [2019] reported in 111 taxmann.com 94 in regard to similar issue held as under— "11. We note that the books of account of the respondent were rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 145(3) of the Act. However, the Tribunal found in the impugned order that the invocation of section 145

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

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

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

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

COTTAGE HANDICRAFT TEXTILE EMPORIUM,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

145(3) and also deleted the lumpsum trading addition by holding that the learned AO was not justified in ignoring the provisions of section 44AD of the Act (last two paras at page no. 26 of the order of CIT(A)). However, the learned CIT(A) made an addition of Rs. 6,61,606/- on account of stock valuation difference

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

section 145(3) while making the addition. The ITAT in the above order also held that the subject matter of assessment is the matters which were taken up by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment are very much subject matter of appeal so far as the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) exercising enhancement of income. In this case also

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Properties Pvt Ltd. Reported on [2019] 111 taxmann.com 94 (Bombay) has held; “11.We note that the books of accounts of the Respondent were rejected by the CIT (A) under section 145(3) of the Act. However, the Tribunal found in the impugned order that the invocation of section 145(3) of the Act is unjustified as no defect was noted

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

House Property- Rs. 8,17,320 1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000 40 ITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018 ITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024 2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were made by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee. 3. The assessee

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

House Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n40\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were made by\nthe ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n3. The assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

House property and income under the head Business. 4.1 During the course of assessment proceeding various defects in the books of account of the assessee were found for A. Y. 2011-12 to 2017-18. The assessing officer has recorded his finding on the aspect of the inventory register, valuation method adopted, maintaining the mix stock