PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of\nthe Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the\nso-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough\nback own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief of any\naccommodation entry. (Refer PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

reassessment order subjected to revision passed on 15.04.2021\nwhereas the Checkmate (Supra) decision came one and a half year later\nthereto i.e. 12.10.2022. Therefore, the CIT could not have found any\nfault in the assessment order or could neither held as the subject\nreassessment as erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue interest. On\nthis is aspect the law is well

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment under\nsections 148 & 147/148 - Held, yes - Whether therefore, where basis for initiation\nof section 148 proceedings in case of assessee was material seized relating to or\nbelonging to assessee during search conducted on 'M' Group, notices issued\nunder section 148 and impugned orders rejecting objections filed to issuance of\nnotice were to be quashed and set aside - Held

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)

section 147. 1. Unjustified high-pitch additions on the basis of "manuscript / paper delivered by a person habitual to make such type forged signature documents of various government authorities, which is also established by court of law and such person has been sentenced imprisonment of more than 3 years for such act(extract of civil court judgement already provided

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)

section 147. 1. Unjustified high-pitch additions on the basis of "manuscript / paper delivered by a person habitual to make such type forged signature documents of various government authorities, which is also established by court of law and such person has been sentenced imprisonment of more than 3 years for such act(extract of civil court judgement already provided

MILESTONE DEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 have already been passed for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17 even before concluding appellate proceedings (and were available on E-filing of Income Tax Department itself), which fact was duly communicated to Id.CIT(A) vide submission dated 8.7.23. Appellant prays that such action of Id. CIT(A) is also absolutely arbitrary and order so passed deserves

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

reassess the earlier\nassessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can't\nusurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision.\nNo overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the\nrevision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

69B, Section 69C or any other\nprovisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has\npaid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the\naccommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief of any accommodation entry.\n(Refer PCIT Vs. Meenakshi

ASHA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

SHRI SURESH KUMAR CHAWLA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(3), JAIPUR

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

SHRI BHAGWATI PRASAD SHARMA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, DAUSA

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

SMT. SAROJ DHAKA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

SHRI KAILASH CHAND GEHLOT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3) JAIPUR

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SENGWA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, AJMER

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

SHRI SHRINIVAS TRIPATHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

u/s 69B in regard to it as\nstated above, assessee have never purchase immovable property instead it has\nsold immovable property to M/s Jumbo Chemicals & Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd.\nTherefore entire reassessment proceedings based on wrong satisfaction\ndeserves to be held bad in law and consequent additions deserves to be deleted.\nFrom the perusal of the remand report

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)

69B (see para 4.1). In the present case also, investment in agriculture land was made on 07.09.2016 which is prior to 15.12.2016 and therefore even if it is held that it is taxable u/s 69 of the Act, tax rate applicable u/s 115BBE would be 30% and not 60%. Ground No.2 (AY 2018-19) The Ld. CIT(A) has further

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,

69B (see para 4.1). In the present case also, investment in agriculture land was made on 07.09.2016 which is prior to 15.12.2016 and therefore even if it is held that it is taxable u/s 69 of the Act, tax rate applicable u/s 115BBE would be 30% and not 60%. Ground No.2 (AY 2018-19) The Ld. CIT(A) has further

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)

69B (see para 4.1). In the present case also, investment in agriculture land was made on 07.09.2016 which is prior to 15.12.2016 and therefore even if it is held that it is taxable u/s 69 of the Act, tax rate applicable u/s 115BBE would be 30% and not 60%. Ground No.2 (AY 2018-19) The Ld. CIT(A) has further