WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

374/- and\nadministrative expenses of Rs.24,25,471/-, totalling to Rs.1,15,27,845/- has been\nincurred. Out of the gross interest income, Rs.8,22,174/- is interest income from\nFDR with SBI and interest income from financial institutions. Hence, on\nproportionate basis, the expenditure incurred on interest receipt of Rs.8,22,174/-\nis Rs.5

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 69 cannot be invoked and the sundry debtors has to be treated as business or profession income of the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, no existence of evidence in relation to any unaccounted independent identifiable other investment which was found during the course of survey. It is also admitted fact the appellant admittedly is engaged in business from

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

property and income\nfrom other sources.\n3.1 In the case of M/s Dhoot Sangmermer Pvt. Ltd, a survey\nunder section 133A of the Act was carried out on 05/06/2018 and\nduring the course of survey, certain papers were found at the\nbusiness premises of the company which was inventorised by the\nsurvey party as Annexure A-(Exhibit No.02). Shri Raghav

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)

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

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)

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

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)

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house 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

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property or any part of the property is let57 and the actual rent received or receivable57 by the owner in respect thereof is in excess

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property or any part of the property is let57 and the actual rent received or receivable57 by the owner in respect thereof is in excess

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

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