DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL DEVELOPERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

investment in Chomu House -and-Royal\nDevelopers. The same is tabulated as under:-\n\nHemant Garg\nΑ.Υ.\nParticulars\nAddition\nPage No. of\nAsst. Order\n2013-\n14\nAddition on account of unexplained\nadvances and interest receipts in firm\nM/s Royal Developers\n5049966\n2 to 9\n2014-\n15\nAddition on account of unexplained\nadvances and interest receipts in\nfirm M/s Royal

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

property & no confirmation on record to show that the seller has received the sum for the transaction recorded on that material. In absence of supporting evidence as regard to the ownership of the transactions, the AO failed to add the sum of Rs 1,44,35,000/- as unexplained investment of assessee u/s 69 consequently, liable to be taxed

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)

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

ASHOK SINGH ,IMLI PHATAK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained\ninvestment arises. In case the LD Assessing officer was not satisfied with the\nsource of deposits in the Bank accounts, he could have made addition of dubious\ndeposits, if any with the Bank. The investment in the property is duly recorded\nand fully explained. Moreover, the source of cash deposited with the Bank has\nalso been explained

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO's of\nthe assessee are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024

investment u/s 69 construction of residential house property,\naddition of Rs.26,853/- on account of undisclosed capital gain, addition of\nRs.62,37,040/- on account of undisclosed income from Garden Mahaveer\nParadise and addition of Rs.1,63,26,661/- on account of unexplained

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. VIJAY GUPTA, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.373/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer cuke Vs. Vijay Gupta 5 Ground Floor, Khailand Market, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:ABHPG 9894 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajay Malik(CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 12/09

unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on the basis of incriminating documents found/seized. 4. The learned CIT Appeal has erred in law in granting relief 0 to the taxpayer ignoring that all these documents The evidence emanating from the seized material and in this process, the Learned Commissioner ignored the Principle of Preponderance of Human Probability

HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house is not found acceptable. In view of the above discussion, the addition of Rs.51,26,562/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in the aforesaid properties

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

property, cash found, loans and excess stock & over sale of Kota stone. Statement of the assessee was recorded on 15.11.2017 where in reply to Q. No.24 (PB 104) when required to explain the source of investment in house construction, he stated that same is out of the savings of agricultural income/ from business. 2. In post search proceedings assessee furnished

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

property, cash found, loans and excess stock & over sale of Kota stone. Statement of the assessee was recorded on 15.11.2017 where in reply to Q. No.24 (PB 104) when required to explain the source of investment in house construction, he stated that same is out of the savings of agricultural income/ from business. 2. In post search proceedings assessee furnished

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property, cash found, loans and excess stock & over sale of Kota stone. Statement of the assessee was recorded on 15.11.2017 where in reply to Q. No.24 (PB 104) when required to explain the source of investment in house construction, he stated that same is out of the savings of agricultural income/ from business. 2. In post search proceedings assessee furnished

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property, cash found, loans and excess stock & over sale of Kota stone. Statement of the assessee was recorded on 15.11.2017 where in reply to Q. No.24 (PB 104) when required to explain the source of investment in house construction, he stated that same is out of the savings of agricultural income/ from business. 2. In post search proceedings assessee furnished

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

property, cash found, loans and excess stock & over sale of Kota stone. Statement of the assessee was recorded on 15.11.2017 where in reply to Q. No.24 (PB 104) when required to explain the source of investment in house construction, he stated that same is out of the savings of agricultural income/ from business. 2. In post search proceedings assessee furnished

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

property, cash found, loans and excess stock & over sale of Kota stone. Statement of the assessee was recorded on 15.11.2017 where in reply to Q. No.24 (PB 104) when required to explain the source of investment in house construction, he stated that same is out of the savings of agricultural income/ from business. 2. In post search proceedings assessee furnished

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. MUKESH KUMAR SOMANI, KISHANGARH

In the result appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

unexplained investment on account of construction of house property in the hands of assessee being key person managing all the affairs

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. ALOK MALPANI, KISHANGARH

In the result appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

unexplained investment on account of construction of house property in the hands of assessee being key person managing all the affairs

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

investment made by the assessee in purchase of immovable property remained unexplained and escaped the assessment. Based on that set of facts a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2021 for the year under consideration by ITO, Banswara. 3.1 Thereafter, the case was transferred to DCIT, (Intl. Tax) Jaipur. Assessee did not file

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

unexplained Interest Income Rs. 2,924.00 Also, deduction claimed by assessee u/s VIA to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- was not given. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O. against which the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 3. The ground No. 1 and 1.1 of the appeal raised

SMT RAMA BAJAJ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

investment in property has been shown at Rs. 20,12,207/-. Therefore, the housing loan was not fully utilized for housing purpose and accordingly, the ld. AO allowed the interest of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the self occupied property and disallowed the deduction of Rs. 1,98,888/- (3,48,888 -1,50,000). 2.5 During the assessment proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

unexplained investment is not applicable in the present case. In support, the assessee relies on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Ushakant N. Patel vs. CIT (282 ITR 553). 33. It is further submitted that the onus in relation to section 69/69B lies on the Revenue to show that the payments were made outside the books