PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

Properties And Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota 2024 (10) TMI 425 - ITAT JAIPUR in ITA No. 302/JP/2024 Dated: October 3, 2024 (Copy at Case laws PB Page No 264-328) Rejection of books of accounts u/s 145 - Addition u/s 68/69A with 115BBE - cash deposited during demonetization as unexplained credit - HELD THAT

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

House, Vs. Ward 7(3) Sector-32, Jaipur. Gurgaon. (Haryana) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AACCH 7688 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby : Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate & Shri Utkarsh Shara, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/01/2025 ?kks"k.kk

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)

house) of the original contract to the third party. In the case of the assessee company it was merely SPV specially formed as conduit for distribution and execution of work awarded to participating companies. It is not a case where work was given to third party. M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 1.9. The assessee company was not in existence

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)

house) of the original contract to the third party. In the case of the assessee company it was merely SPV specially formed as conduit for distribution and execution of work awarded to participating companies. It is not a case where work was given to third party. M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 1.9. The assessee company was not in existence

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)

2. That the goods received on approval and considered as unaccounted sale should be treated as receipt of goods. 3. That necessary credit for the duplicate/ multiple entries deserve to be allowed. 4. That the credit of additions that have also been made in the case of Shri Chandra Prakash Agrawal (appellant’s father) should be allowed. Shri Jitendra Kumar

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)

2. That the goods received on approval and considered as unaccounted sale should be treated as receipt of goods. 3. That necessary credit for the duplicate/ multiple entries deserve to be allowed. 4. That the credit of additions that have also been made in the case of Shri Chandra Prakash Agrawal (appellant’s father) should be allowed. Shri Jitendra Kumar

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)

2. That the goods received on approval and considered as unaccounted sale should be treated as receipt of goods. 3. That necessary credit for the duplicate/ multiple entries deserve to be allowed. 4. That the credit of additions that have also been made in the case of Shri Chandra Prakash Agrawal (appellant’s father) should be allowed. Shri Jitendra Kumar

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)

2. That the goods received on approval and considered as unaccounted sale should be treated as receipt of goods. 3. That necessary credit for the duplicate/ multiple entries deserve to be allowed. 4. That the credit of additions that have also been made in the case of Shri Chandra Prakash Agrawal (appellant’s father) should be allowed. Shri Jitendra Kumar

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)

2. That the goods received on approval and considered as unaccounted sale should be treated as receipt of goods. 3. That necessary credit for the duplicate/ multiple entries deserve to be allowed. 4. That the credit of additions that have also been made in the case of Shri Chandra Prakash Agrawal (appellant’s father) should be allowed. Shri Jitendra Kumar

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)

2. That the goods received on approval and considered as unaccounted sale should be treated as receipt of goods. 3. That necessary credit for the duplicate/ multiple entries deserve to be allowed. 4. That the credit of additions that have also been made in the case of Shri Chandra Prakash Agrawal (appellant’s father) should be allowed. Shri Jitendra Kumar

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)

2. That the goods received on approval and considered as unaccounted sale should be treated as receipt of goods. 3. That necessary credit for the duplicate/ multiple entries deserve to be allowed. 4. That the credit of additions that have also been made in the case of Shri Chandra Prakash Agrawal (appellant’s father) should be allowed. Shri Jitendra Kumar

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)

2. That the goods received on approval and considered as unaccounted sale should be treated as receipt of goods. 3. That necessary credit for the duplicate/ multiple entries deserve to be allowed. 4. That the credit of additions that have also been made in the case of Shri Chandra Prakash Agrawal (appellant’s father) should be allowed. Shri Jitendra Kumar

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)

2. That the goods received on approval and considered as unaccounted sale should be treated as receipt of goods. 3. That necessary credit for the duplicate/ multiple entries deserve to be allowed. 4. That the credit of additions that have also been made in the case of Shri Chandra Prakash Agrawal (appellant’s father) should be allowed. Shri Jitendra Kumar

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

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

property held under\ntrust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, \"for which is of the nature\nreferred to in sub-clause (a) of clause (24) of section 2.] for which is of the\nnature referred to in sub-section (4A) of section 11.] tax shall be charged on so\nmuch of the relevant income as is not exempt under section

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

property held under\ntrust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, \"for which is of the nature\nreferred to in sub-clause (a) of clause (24) of section 2.] for which is of the\nnature referred to in sub-section (4A) of section 11.] tax shall be charged on so\nmuch of the relevant income as is not exempt under section

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

House (ITA No.613/2010). In the facts of above case, a cash of Rs. 24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that nexus of such deposit was not establish with any source of income. The assessee claimed that it was duly recorded in the books of account

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

2) - Held, yes..”\n11. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A