MOHIT METALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC

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

747/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, it is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961." During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer comes to the conclusion that the income, with respect to which he has recorded "reason to believe" to have escaped assessment

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

U/s 143(1), therefore, the proviso to Section 147 of the Act cannot be invoked. Therefore, ground No. 1 of the appeal for the A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed. 9. Ground No. 2 of the appeals is regarding the addition made by the A.O., which was partly sustained by the ld. CIT(A) on account of unverifiable purchases

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

U/s 143(1), therefore, the proviso to Section 147 of the Act cannot be invoked. Therefore, ground No. 1 of the appeal for the A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed. 9. Ground No. 2 of the appeals is regarding the addition made by the A.O., which was partly sustained by the ld. CIT(A) on account of unverifiable purchases

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

U/s 143(1), therefore, the proviso to Section 147 of the Act cannot be invoked. Therefore, ground No. 1 of the appeal for the A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed. 9. Ground No. 2 of the appeals is regarding the addition made by the A.O., which was partly sustained by the ld. CIT(A) on account of unverifiable purchases

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

147 of the Act, for the reason that the\nassessee has received interest other than interest on securities of Rs.3,747/-\npurchased immovable property of Rs.85,00,000/- and sold immovable property of\nRs.93,20,000/-. During the A.Y 2015-16 income of Rs.1,78,23,747/- escaped\nfrom assessment and assessee has not filed his return of income

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

747-749] were again initiated vide notice dated 29.03.2024 proposing to disallow the entire deduction u/s. 10AA. Detailed replies were filed by the assessee appellant, however, the Id. Assessing Officer vide its order dated 29.04.2024 [PB 750-762] has initiated the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2017-2018 placing reliance upon the impugned order passed by the Id. PCIT

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)

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 the same

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

747 & 65/JP/12) vide order dated 26-12-2017. In the case of Shri Rajkumar Agarwal, the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has decided vide ITA No. 504/JP/2013 as follows: “Accordingly, the addition made by the authorities below on account of unverifiable purchases is restricted to gross profit rate addition to be computed by the A.O. on the basis

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

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

747/- was declared in the return filed, which was invalid return of income. 6.3 The appellant has claimed that his wife was misguided by some unscrupulous elements who prepared the returns and made his wife invoke incorrect deductions to claim the refunds. His wife was ignorant that these deductions were not applicable to him and this process continued since appellant

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

747/- was declared in the return filed, which was invalid return of income. 6.3 The appellant has claimed that his wife was misguided by some unscrupulous elements who prepared the returns and made his wife invoke incorrect deductions to claim the refunds. His wife was ignorant that these deductions were not applicable to him and this process continued since appellant

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

747/- was declared in the return filed, which was invalid return of income. 6.3 The appellant has claimed that his wife was misguided by some unscrupulous elements who prepared the returns and made his wife invoke incorrect deductions to claim the refunds. His wife was ignorant that these deductions were not applicable to him and this process continued since appellant

DEEPALI BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

reassessment proceedings. 2. That the ld. lower authorities grossly erred in adopting the value of impugned land sold at Rs. 1,67,52,562/- u/s 50C of the Act as against Rs. 1,56,39,110/- shown and adopted by the assessee. 2.1 That the lower authorities grossly erred in ignoring several reasonable, plausible objections which had material bearing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 133A (6) empowered the Income Tax Authority to record the statement on oath, therefore the recording of statement u/s 131 in this case was not ultra-vires. 6 Whether facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the in other important fact that during the assessment proceedings of the assessee

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

747/- Agarwal MukutBehari 2015-16 155/JPR/2020 1 & 2 21,38,983/- 1,29,933/- Agarwal Sunita Agarwal 2011-12 156/JPR/2020 1 & 2 5,79,23,026/- 34,75,382/- Sunita Agarwal 2014-15 157/JPR/2020 1 & 2 2,49,43,122/- 14,96,587/- CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Sunita Agarwal 2015-16 158/JPR/2020

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

747/- Agarwal MukutBehari 2015-16 155/JPR/2020 1 & 2 21,38,983/- 1,29,933/- Agarwal Sunita Agarwal 2011-12 156/JPR/2020 1 & 2 5,79,23,026/- 34,75,382/- Sunita Agarwal 2014-15 157/JPR/2020 1 & 2 2,49,43,122/- 14,96,587/- CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Sunita Agarwal 2015-16 158/JPR/2020

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

747/- Agarwal MukutBehari 2015-16 155/JPR/2020 1 & 2 21,38,983/- 1,29,933/- Agarwal Sunita Agarwal 2011-12 156/JPR/2020 1 & 2 5,79,23,026/- 34,75,382/- Sunita Agarwal 2014-15 157/JPR/2020 1 & 2 2,49,43,122/- 14,96,587/- CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Sunita Agarwal 2015-16 158/JPR/2020

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

747/- Agarwal MukutBehari 2015-16 155/JPR/2020 1 & 2 21,38,983/- 1,29,933/- Agarwal Sunita Agarwal 2011-12 156/JPR/2020 1 & 2 5,79,23,026/- 34,75,382/- Sunita Agarwal 2014-15 157/JPR/2020 1 & 2 2,49,43,122/- 14,96,587/- CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Sunita Agarwal 2015-16 158/JPR/2020