DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 143 (3) / 147 was completed 19 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya by Ld. A.O. at an income of Rs. 43,57,610/- by taking total income at 24,000/- as per return filed and by disallowing 25% of said purchases of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- amounting to Rs. 43,33,606/- holding them as ingenuine purchases and added

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.453/Jp/2024 On The Following Grounds; “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,33,606/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Shown Bogus Purchase Of Rs 1,73,34,424/- During The Year From A Bogus Concern. 3

u/s 143 (3) / 147 was completed 19 ITA No. 453/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya by Ld. A.O. at an income of Rs. 43,57,610/- by taking total income at 24,000/- as per return filed and by disallowing 25% of said purchases of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- amounting to Rs. 43,33,606/- holding them as ingenuine

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Permanent Account No. AAFCA2023B Status Company Previous Year 2008-09 Assessment year 2009-10 Date of recording the reason 21-03-2016 As per information received on from office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-1, Faridabad through his letter No. 4365 dated 14/3/2016. The issues identified in the case of M/s Angel Infrastructure

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Permanent Account No. AAFCA2023B Status Company Previous Year 2008-09 Assessment year 2009-10 Date of recording the reason 21-03-2016 As per information received on from office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-1, Faridabad through his letter No. 4365 dated 14/3/2016. The issues identified in the case of M/s Angel Infrastructure

VIJIT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

permanent account\nnumber but on desire of AO of producing said parties, none of parties were\nable to prove source of amount advanced to assessee Thus, AO made\naddition u/s 68 as income from undisclosed sources CIT(A) deleted addition\nholding that source of cash creditors was not required to be proved by\nassessee once identity, capacity and genuineness stands

SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

reassessment proceedings reproduced in assessment order. It is prayed that the same may kindly be considered while disposing the ground of appeal. It is submitted that from the plain reading of the reasons recorded, it can be noted that notice u/s 148 is issued solely on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, Mumbai where it referred to various

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

permanently shifted to Bijainnagar and started a small saree shop. On receipt of assessment order and appellate order whereby a huge demand was created against him he went into depression. He, thus, could not make decision whether to file appeal before Hon'ble Bench or not. By the time his family and friends could make him realize the necessity

SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

permanently shifted to Bijainnagar and started a small saree shop. On receipt of assessment order and appellate order whereby a huge demand was created against him he went into depression. He, thus, could not make decision whether to file appeal before Hon'ble Bench or not. By the time his family and friends could make him realize the necessity

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

established and he confirms the\nloans.\n(xii) CIT VsHeeraLalChaganLal Tank (2002) 157 ITR 281 (Raj) Burden of the assessee\nstands discharged when the identity of the creditors is established and he confirms the\nloans.\nB)\nITAT Jaipur/Jodhpur\ni)\nShalimar Buildcon (P) Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 128 ITD 0396 (Jaipur)In this case\nHon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench has relied

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

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

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this Allahabad High Court had made following observations, 14. We have considered the facts in the present case Shri Mukesh J. Shah sold his land during A.Y. 2009-10 for Rs. 51.09 crores and assessed to tax by ITO, Ward

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

147 and 148 of the Act was erroneous and notice issued for reassessment should be quashed The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ITA 692/2016 dated May 26, 2017, (2017) 99CCH 0028 DelHC; 395 ITR 677; 154 DTR 0100 (Del); (2017) 395 ITR 0677 (Delhi)) has held that there

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Accommodation entry) Assessment vear 2008-09 Information was received from investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation entries received from certain established entry operators During investigation, it was found that entry operators were engaged in money laundering business for beneficiaries - According to Assessing Officer, sources of transactions were

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Permanent Account and Director Identification Number, through which it could be concluded that the assessee was not the Director in the various companies, as mentioned in the order passed by ld. PCIT, under Section 263. Affidavit of other Naresh Bharagava, along with the supporting evidences, are enclosed in the Paper Book 64 to 87. In view of the above

OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147 of the IT Act was issued on 21.12.2023 asking to submit response on or before 28.12.2023. The assessee responded and sought adjournment. The assessee filed its reply on 06.01.2024 and furnished copy of ITR alongwith computation of income, Audit Report and details of shareholders etc. A centralized communication was also sent to the assessee on 18.01.2024 to which

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

permanent establishment in India. 7 Isys Softech Private Limited vs. ITO High Courts and finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in different judicial pronouncements have held that payment to non-resident, having no PE in India is not liable to Income tax in India and therefore no TDS was required. Reliance is placed on following decisions

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GODAWARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

reassessing the completed assessment. Assessee’s appeal fails in Gr No 1. 3.2 Ground No. 2 & 3: “Regarding addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by applying the provisions of section 56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the share capital and premium thereon received from various companies as income of the assessee.” 3.2.1 Submission made: Relevant extracts

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

reassessment order: 15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,83,09,666/- on interest income (including penal interest income Rs. 8,83,09,666/- and other income

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

reassessment order: 15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,83,09,666/- on interest income (including penal interest income Rs. 8,83,09,666/- and other income