FARMAN KHAN,CHAKSU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

36 times during year - Considering assessee's act to be in violation of section 269SS, Assessing Officer imposed penalty upon assessee under section 271D - Tribunal found that there was business exigency forcing assessee to take cash loans for purpose of honouring its cheque commitments; creditors were genuine persons and transactions were satisfactorily explained by assessee; and there was no revenue

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add or to amend the foregoing ground of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest of justice.” (Ground wise submissions are as follows) After discussing the brief facts of the case and grounds of appeal, the appellant very humbly and respectfully begs to submit

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

u/s 80HHC of the Act. On the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer from investigation he considered the entry for export of 70 lacs as bogus. He denied benefit u/s 80HHC of the Act. Further, he made addition of Rs. 70 lacs in the income u/s 68 of the Act. It was held that once the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

viii. Vide Invoice No. 034 dated 20.03.2013, the assessee purchased Gold Ornaments amounting to Rs. 7,46,7047-weighted quantity 253. 1700 Gms. ix. Vide Invoice No. 016 dated 18.02.2013, the assessee purchased Gold Ornaments amounting to Rs. 4,49,9807- weighted quantity 151.000 Gms. The assessee purchased jewellery from M/s Shri Hari Jewellers, the details of such bills

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

viii. It was the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) Decision of CIT(A) is self explanatory. No (refer para 8.3.1 of the CIT(A) order0 that counter submission is required details of cash withdrawal submitted by the appellant are contra entries. In this regard, please note that as per accounting principle any transaction which affect cash account and bank

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

36 taxmann.com 523(Raj).\n\nLd. AO noted the reply filed by the assessee was considered but the\nsame was not acceptable because during the search the statement of Shri\nSanjay Karni, Director of the assessee company wherein he failed to\nfurnish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the parties against\n\n5\nITA Nos.480/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Karnani Solvex Private

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

viii) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the provision of section 115BBE appeared to be in the nature of compensatory provisions applicable to incomes, which were not recorded or correctly recorded at the first place but disclosed subsequently in the returns filed u/s 153A of the Act and therefore I find that the AO was justified

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

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

viii) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the provision of section 115BBE appeared to be in the nature of compensatory provisions applicable to incomes, which were not recorded or correctly recorded at the first place but disclosed subsequently in the returns filed u/s 153A of the Act and therefore I find that the AO was justified

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) were issued. Thereafter, the ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings as per the case were discussed with him. It was stated that the assessee has been engaged in retail business in the name and style of Krishna Radymade& Fancy Store at near Government Hospital, Samod. The assessee furnished trading, profit & loss account

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) were issued. Thereafter, the ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings as per the case were discussed with him. It was stated that the assessee has been engaged in retail business in the name and style of Krishna Radymade& Fancy Store at near Government Hospital, Samod. The assessee furnished trading, profit & loss account

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He consulted his counsel for reply of the said notice. The counsel checked the e-filing portal of the assessee company to know about the status of pending appeal. Thereafter, it was discovered that the order confirming the additions had been passed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The counsel

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are thatsearch and seizure operations under section 132(1) of the Actwere

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

36. That it is submitted that the notice issued u/s 143(2) was time barred as the notice to be served within 6 months from the end the return is furnished under section 139 or in response of notice u/s 142(1) not in response to notice u/s 153C. So the notice issued u/s 143(2) is time barred

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

36. That it is submitted that the notice issued u/s 143(2) was time barred as the notice to be served within 6 months from the end the return is furnished under section 139 or in response of notice u/s 142(1) not in response to notice u/s 153C. So the notice issued u/s 143(2) is time barred

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground is premature at this stage as no such penalty has yet been levied by the AO and hence, the Ground No. 5 &6 are also dismissed. 10. Through Ground No. 7, the appellant craved leave to add, alter, delete, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

viii), a notice, through the National Faceless Assessment Centre, under section 144, giving him an opportunity to show-cause on a date and time as specified in such notice as to why the assessment in his case should not be completed to the best of its judgment; (x) the assessee shall, within the time specified in the notice referred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above. 8. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised by the assessee the relevant finding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above. 8. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised by the assessee the relevant finding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above. 8. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised by the assessee the relevant finding