DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

245D(4) dated 16.05.2019. 8.2 Thus considering the factual and legal position especially the settlement petition filed by MBDL and order of the settlement commission, I am of the view that the 'on money' received in the JME project belongs to MBDL only. MBDL has offered the same before the settlement commission and the same has been accepted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

245D(4) dated 16.05.2019. 8.2 Thus considering the factual and legal position especially the settlement petition filed by MBDL and order of the settlement commission, I am of the view that the 'on money' received in the JME project belongs to MBDL only. MBDL has offered the same before the settlement commission and the same has been accepted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAM GOPAL SARRAF, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

245D (4) and each and every transactions given in ledger accounts by Ld. A.O. on page 9 – 15 of assessment order has been considered as of Manglam group and covered in determining undisclosed income of Manglam group and therefore those ledger accounts cannot be held as pertaining to or related to assessee herein. 17. It was further submitted that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAM GOPAL SARRAF, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

245D (4) and each and every transactions given in ledger accounts by Ld. A.O. on page 9 – 15 of assessment order has been considered as of Manglam group and covered in determining undisclosed income of Manglam group and therefore those ledger accounts cannot be held as pertaining to or related to assessee herein. 17. It was further submitted that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAM GOPAL SARRAF, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

245D (4) and each and every transactions given in ledger accounts by Ld. A.O. on page 9 – 15 of assessment order has been considered as of Manglam group and covered in determining undisclosed income of Manglam group and therefore those ledger accounts cannot be held as pertaining to or related to assessee herein. 17. It was further submitted that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCL-1,, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MOHAN SUKHANI, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

245D (4) and which has been rightly appreciated and considered by the ld CIT(A) as each and every transactions given in ledger accounts by Ld. A.O. has been considered as of Manglam group DCIT vs. Shri Mohan Sukhani and covered in determining undisclosed income of Manglam group and therefore these entries/transactions cannot again be brought to tax in hands

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCL-1,, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MOHAN SUKHANI, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

245D (4) and which has been rightly appreciated and considered by the ld CIT(A) as each and every transactions given in ledger accounts by Ld. A.O. has been considered as of Manglam group DCIT vs. Shri Mohan Sukhani and covered in determining undisclosed income of Manglam group and therefore these entries/transactions cannot again be brought to tax in hands

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 69 & 69A of I. T. Act, 1961 itself provides that where investments are not recorded in books of accounts or jewellery etc. not recorded in books of accounts or remains unexplained than such investments is deemed to be the income of assessee for such financial year in which these are found. Thus investments are found on the date

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

property, Business and Other sources. The assessee is a\nfinance broker and earned brokerage income in his proprietary\nconcern M/s Vihan Associates. Statutory notice as required u/s.\n143(2) of the Act and notice u/s 142(1) were also issued to the\nassessee and information and details pertaining to the case\nrelevant to assessment of his income were called

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly\nallowed

245D(4) of the I.T. Act,\nconsidering the brokerage rate 1.2% per annum (i.e. 0.1% of the\nloan). Since the department accepted this rate for the transaction\nbetween the known and unknown person hence brokerage rate\nwas considered\n0.10 paisa per hundred in each transaction of\nthe assessee which has found not to be recorded in his regular\nbooks