SHRI SHRAVAN CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68% of share and M/s. Sai Properties has accumulated profits to the tune of Rs. 7,48,07,150/-. The transaction is squarely covered under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act as deemed dividend

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act 9. In the light of the above, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Assessee has essentially emanated from a misconception that the Additions made under Section 698/69C have to be reduced to some extent by giving leverage to the Assessee to claim some deductions from these Additions as well. If the contention

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. TRUGOLD BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

dividends (ia) to (viia)... ITA 736/JP/2018_ 5 ITO Vs. M/s Trugold Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (viib) Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shores, the aggregate consideration received for such

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

68, 69B etc. In the present case, the income\nsurrendered was to be classified u/s 69 - As per the direction of the Ld. PCIT, however,\nwe find that the Ld. PCIT has nowhere pointed out any contravention that the income\nsurrendered by the assessee falls within the provision of section 69 of the Act. As such,\nthe assessee

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

deemed to be not satisfactory unless [As amended by Finance Act, 2012, w.e.1.1.4.2013]: (a) The person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of suc company, also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited and (b) Such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer has been found

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

dividends to the shareholders cannot be taken as a basis for treating the investment as non- genuine. 8. It is also humbly submitted that out of these seven investors, four investors sold their holding in AY 2011-12 Details of which is as follows: Changes in shareholding No of No of Sold to whom/ shares as shares as Purchased from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act.” 4 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in business of Real estate. The assessee e-filed its return of income on 22.10.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 15,62,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. A notice

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

dividend whether with or without a further right to participate in profits) carrying not less than twenty percent of the voting power are at the time during the previous year, owned beneficially by such person or partly by such person and partly by one or Whereas, clause (ii) covers only those more of the other persons referred to concerns where

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

deemed dividend but upheld addition respect of sum declared as gifts by the assessee. The assessee challenged validity of assessment made u/s 153A on the ground that no assessment respect of the assessment years was pending so as have abated. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission and held that incriminating material having been found during the course of search

GOOD WILL IMPEX LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR-2

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, 69, 694 69B 69C, 69D of Income Tax Act. (2) Income Tax on these incomes are chargeable at the rate of sixty percent of the income. (3) This section is applicable where assessee's income is recorded in books but has not been offered to tax and the assessee fails to prove the nature and source to the satisfaction

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

dividends and\nsound financial conditions. All the transactions of the sale of shares have\nresulted into huge abnormal profits, which is not possible in normal course of\ninvestment. However, evidence indicating sham transactions by all the investors\nwere not found by the Department, but the pattern of investment, the modus\noperandi adopted is largely same for 100% of investors

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

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

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

dividends and sound financial conditions. All the transactions of the sale of shares have resulted into huge abnormal profits, which is not possible in normal course of investment. However, evidence indicating sham transactions by all the investors were not found by the Department, but the pattern of investment, the modus operandi adopted is largely same for 100% of investors