RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section\n271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section\n271FB,section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section\n272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A)\nof section

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment u/s 148 and notices were issued. In response, the assessee submitted the reply. The details of the notices issued and replied by the assessee were as under: Date of notice Under Issued By Response due dates Reply submitted Section on 09.02.2023 ITO, Pune-13(2) 01.03.2023 22.02.2023 148A 29.03.2023 148 ITO, Pune-13(2) 14.04.2023 11.10.2023 142(1) Faceless

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)

reassessed u/s 147 /144B vide order dated 27.03.2023, by the Faceless Assessing officer (FAO) at the Returned Income itself.In other words, all transactionswere found disclosed and the explanations were accepted, and so no unaccounted income /Black money or evasion of tax was found by the FAO.A copy of the assessment order A.Y. 2018-19 is enclosed (As Annexure

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, 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. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

271A and 271B. Section 158 BFA provides for levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BG specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter XIV-B. Section

SMT. UMA MANDAL, 754, LADHON KA MOHALLA, BEHIND MINERVA CINEMA, M.D. ROAD, JAIPUR-302004,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 466/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Uma Mandal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 754, Lodhon Ka Mohalla, Ward 5(4), Behind Minerva Cinema, M.D. Jaipur. Road, Jaipur-302004. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Apspm 2419 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vishal Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 22/02/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Action Of Ld. A.O. In Assessing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 2037281.00 Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Earned Only Commission Income At The Rate Of 0.25 Percent & Treating Percent Of The Deposits In Her Bank Account As Her Income. The Additions Of Pursuance Of Same, Are Prayed To Be Deleted 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Action Of Ld. A.O. Of Initiating Penalty Under Section 271A & 271B Ignoring The Fact

271A & 271B ignoring the fact 2 ITA 466/JP/2019_ Uma Mandal Vs ITO that the commission should be treated as turnover of the assessee and not the deposits in the account. The Ld. Appellate authority is hereby prayed to hold such action as illegal. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

SHRI SANJAY PARAKH,JODHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ALWAR

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

reassessment proceedings, it Shri Sanjay Parkash Vs. ITO was noticed that the assessee was engaged in day-to- day trading of commodity/shares and his total turnover of share trading was Rs. 27,26,87,233/- during the year under consideration and the assessee has failed to produce books of accounts and other documents as required U/s 44AB

SHRI SANJAY PARAKH,JODHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ALWAR

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

reassessment proceedings, it Shri Sanjay Parkash Vs. ITO was noticed that the assessee was engaged in day-to- day trading of commodity/shares and his total turnover of share trading was Rs. 27,26,87,233/- during the year under consideration and the assessee has failed to produce books of accounts and other documents as required U/s 44AB

SHRI SANJAY PARAKH,JODHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ALWAR

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

reassessment proceedings, it Shri Sanjay Parkash Vs. ITO was noticed that the assessee was engaged in day-to- day trading of commodity/shares and his total turnover of share trading was Rs. 27,26,87,233/- during the year under consideration and the assessee has failed to produce books of accounts and other documents as required U/s 44AB

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271A : Failed to keep, maintain, or retain books of accounts, documents etc. as required u/s 44AA. 271B : Failed to get the accounts audited or obtain audit report as required under section 44AB or furnish such report alongwith return under section 139(1) or in response to notice under section 142(1)(i). 271C : Failed to deduct tax at source, wholly

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. SUDARSHNA SOMANI, KISHANGARH

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

section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed as under: ACIT vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya & others “Sec. 68 refers to cash credits which are found in the books of the assessee. If the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, then the sum so credited may be charged to income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. KUSUM DEVI VIJAYVARGIYA, KISHANGARH

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

section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed as under: ACIT vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya & others “Sec. 68 refers to cash credits which are found in the books of the assessee. If the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, then the sum so credited may be charged to income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGHAL, KISHANGARH

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

section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed as under: ACIT vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya & others “Sec. 68 refers to cash credits which are found in the books of the assessee. If the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, then the sum so credited may be charged to income

ACIT, AJMER vs. PRAKASH CHAND VIJAYVARGIYA, KISHANGARH

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

section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed as under: ACIT vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya & others “Sec. 68 refers to cash credits which are found in the books of the assessee. If the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, then the sum so credited may be charged to income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SHRI VASU DEV SOMANI, KISHANGARH

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

section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed as under: ACIT vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya & others “Sec. 68 refers to cash credits which are found in the books of the assessee. If the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, then the sum so credited may be charged to income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SHRI VASU DEV SOMANI, KISHANGARH

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

section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed as under: ACIT vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya & others “Sec. 68 refers to cash credits which are found in the books of the assessee. If the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, then the sum so credited may be charged to income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. KUSUM DEVI VIJAYVARGIYA, KISHANGARH

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

section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed as under: ACIT vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya & others “Sec. 68 refers to cash credits which are found in the books of the assessee. If the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, then the sum so credited may be charged to income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SHRI GOVIND NARAYAN SHARMA, KISHANGARH

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

section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed as under: ACIT vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya & others “Sec. 68 refers to cash credits which are found in the books of the assessee. If the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, then the sum so credited may be charged to income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGHAL, KISHANGARH

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

section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed as under: ACIT vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya & others “Sec. 68 refers to cash credits which are found in the books of the assessee. If the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, then the sum so credited may be charged to income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGHAL, KISHANGARH

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

section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed as under: ACIT vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya & others “Sec. 68 refers to cash credits which are found in the books of the assessee. If the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, then the sum so credited may be charged to income