OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

234 (Guj).’’ 4.4 It is observed that the AO has provided all the details, the appellant has attended the re-assessment proceedings from time to time and has filed the details as sought by the AO. It is also observed that the appellant has never pursued the alleged objection filed against the notice u/s 148 of the Act before

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

234 days, no evidences and no reconciliation have been filed by the appellant in support of the lower figures of profit, the presumption u/s 292C has not been proved wrong by the appellant, thus the U Turn is not a valid retraction. In the appeal, the Appellant has also not placed on record the complete facts of the issue/income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

234 (Kerala) a under: "Section 153A, read with section 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (Scope of) - Assessment years 2002 03 to 2006-07 - Whether where there was a disclosure made by giving a statement during course of search, Assessing Officer, by virtue of power conferred on him under section

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 68 Case pertains to Asst. Year 1966-67 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cash credits—Addition under s. 68—ITO can make addition under s. 68 as income from undisclosed sources, simultaneously with addition to trading results— However, assessee can claim the addition under s. 68 as covered by intangible additions to trading results—In the present case

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

234 in the case of assessee which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (vii) In view of the above, since the Income was not charged/considered under the Correct Head/Section and the correct tax was not levied by the AO/NeAC, therefore due to incorrect assumption of facts and incorrect application of law the tax been under computed/under assessed

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property (loss H.P. income, adjusted again Salary income Rs. (-) 5,78,838/- 3. Income from other sources Rs. 21,990/- Rs. 61,46,078/- Total income of assessee Rs. 61,46,078/- Less: Deduction under chapter VIA Rs. 2,43,584/- Net Taxable salary income Rs. 59,24,484/- Rounded off Rs. 59,24,480/- Loss from LTCG

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

234 (Kerala)/[2016] 240 Taxman 168 (Kerala)/[2016] 385 ITR 624 \n(Kerala)/[2016] 287 CTR 187 (Kerala) (22-03-2016] as under-\n\"Neither under section 132 or under section 153A, is the phraseology \n\"incriminating used by the Parliament Therefore, any material which was unearthed \nduring search operations or any statement made during the course of search

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

234 (Kerala. • E.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 2015 (Kerala) • Commissioner of Income-Tax-I v. MGF Automobiles Ltd. (2016) 72 taxmann.com 240(SC) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Trichur v Dr. P. Sasikumar (2016) 73 taxmann.com 173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

234 (Kerala. • E.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 2015 (Kerala) • Commissioner of Income-Tax-I v. MGF Automobiles Ltd. (2016) 72 taxmann.com 240(SC) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Trichur v Dr. P. Sasikumar (2016) 73 taxmann.com 173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

234 (Kerala. • E.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 2015 (Kerala) • Commissioner of Income-Tax-I v. MGF Automobiles Ltd. (2016) 72 taxmann.com 240(SC) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Trichur v Dr. P. Sasikumar (2016) 73 taxmann.com 173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

234 (Kerala. • E.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 2015 (Kerala) • Commissioner of Income-Tax-I v. MGF Automobiles Ltd. (2016) 72 taxmann.com 240(SC) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Trichur v Dr. P. Sasikumar (2016) 73 taxmann.com 173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

234 (Kerala) as under: "Section 1534. read with section 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Scope of) - Assessment years 2002- 03 to 2006-07 Whether where there was a disclosure made by giving a statement during course of search. Assessing Officer, by virtue of power conferred on him under section

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

234 (Kerala) as under: "Section 1534. read with section 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Scope of) - Assessment years 2002- 03 to 2006-07 Whether where there was a disclosure made by giving a statement during course of search. Assessing Officer, by virtue of power conferred on him under section