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)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

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)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

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)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

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)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

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)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

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)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

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)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

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)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

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)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

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(3

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

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

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

House (Supra) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. (supra),Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld.” 4.2 Further assessee admittedly produced sales bills, cash book and all books of account which have not been rejected. The sales

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

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)

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 7.84% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.44% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, 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)

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 7.84% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.44% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

145(3) of the Act,1961. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of AO in confirming the disallowance of Rs.30,35,538/- being 10% of the amount of Rs. 3,03,53,582/- claimed as application of income. 3. First of all, we take up the appeal

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)

House, but these dealers had been declared unverified in the case of Shri Ravi Haldia and Dinesh Haldia in AY 2004-05 as per Hon'ble ITAT'S Order dated 31.07.2008 in ITA No 320- 321/JP/2008, It is thus, held that the books of account are defective and theprovisions of section 145(3) are clearly and admittedly applicable. In this

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