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

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

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

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

145(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the A.O. before the ld. CIT(A) and also raised objection against the validity of reopening of the assessment. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the ground raised by the assessee against validity of reopening of the assessment. However, on merits, the ld. CIT(A) granted part relief

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

145(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the A.O. before the ld. CIT(A) and also raised objection against the validity of reopening of the assessment. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the ground raised by the assessee against validity of reopening of the assessment. However, on merits, the ld. CIT(A) granted part relief

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

145(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the A.O. before the ld. CIT(A) and also raised objection against the validity of reopening of the assessment. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the ground raised by the assessee against validity of reopening of the assessment. However, on merits, the ld. CIT(A) granted part relief

SHRI KRISHNA YADAV,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary and in the absence

SHRI MUKESH MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are 20 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT. mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded

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