MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. 4.25. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

105 of Exhibit AS-1. The sale deed of aforesaid land could not be executed till date due to ongoing family disputes between the Data family, which is pending in courts. All the immovable properties including agriculture lands of Data family is subject to courts order and above transaction were made subject to rights being accrued by the court order

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

105 of Exhibit AS-1. The sale deed of aforesaid land could not be executed till date due to ongoing family disputes between the Data family, which is pending in courts. All the immovable properties including agriculture lands of Data family is subject to courts order and above transaction were made subject to rights being accrued by the court order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

105 of Exhibit AS-1. The sale deed of aforesaid land could not be executed till date due to ongoing family disputes between the Data family, which is pending in courts. All the immovable properties including agriculture lands of Data family is subject to courts order and above transaction were made subject to rights being accrued by the court order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

105 of Exhibit AS-1. The sale deed of aforesaid land could not be executed till date due to ongoing family disputes between the Data family, which is pending in courts. All the immovable properties including agriculture lands of Data family is subject to courts order and above transaction were made subject to rights being accrued by the court order

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. C.2. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. C.2. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. “ To attract deeming provision of sections 69A of the Act the foremost requirements that is to be followed is that the income should be from any other source rather than from its regular source of earning. Further, ld CIT(A) has not issued notice u/s 251(2) of I.Tax Act as this finding is amount

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 and added it to income of assessee – On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition – On revenue’s appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs. 19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of ‘D’ Ltd. which were converted into drafts and in this manner ‘D’ Ltd. subscribed to share capital of assessee company

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

section 68 submitted that considering the facts of the case of the assessee the same cannot be invoked. The assessee submitted all the details. The books of account of the assessee are audited and maintained in accordance with the rules prescribed. No defects whatsoever has been observed by the lower authority. Referring to clause 25 of the Form

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(2) of Income Tax Act 1961 was issued on 09-08-2018. The assessee deposited Rs. 1,41,32,000/- in demonetized currency during the demonetization period 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. The AO made the addition of Rs. 1,41,32,000/- and the assessment of the assessee was completed by AO vide her order dated

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

section 132 of the income tax act, 1961 in case of M/s Skyway infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Hi-Tech Engineers, M/s RPS infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon Realty Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon infra projects Ltd and Shri Deepak Jain on 10.11.2019, Lateron Mr Deepak Jain retracted from the statement on 27.09.2021. The Ld. AO did not verify

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.”

section 68 treating the 14 squared up loans as unexplained. It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer conducted inquiries at his own level by issuing notices u/s 133(6) to the all the 24 creditors. The Learned Assessing Officer got complete information in respect of ten creditors and in the remaining 14 cases, the information furnished was allegedly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR NOWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 cannot be made. i) Rs. 12,00,000/- was deposited in non-demonetized currency on 28.03.2017, which too offered for Income under “Pradhanmantri Garib Kalyan Yojna-2016” At the outset we would like to submit that the entire finding and addition so made by ld. AO is regarding the cash deposited in demonetized currency. The addition was made without

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. AMAR PRATAP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S

section 68 of the Act and same are listed herein below: 18 ITA No. 173/JPR/2024 & CO No. 03/JP/2024 Amar Pratap Steels Pvt. Ltd. 19 ITA No. 173/JPR/2024 & CO No. 03/JP/2024 Amar Pratap Steels Pvt. Ltd. 20 ITA No. 173/JPR/2024 & CO No. 03/JP/2024 Amar Pratap Steels Pvt. Ltd. 21 ITA No. 173/JPR/2024 & CO No. 03/JP/2024 Amar Pratap Steels

GAYATRI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section will be attracted. (iii) An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will suffice the requirement of order being erroneous. (iv) If the order is passed without application of mind such order will fall under the category of erroneous order. (v) Every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests

ROHIT LADIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing\nincriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then the question\nof reassessment of the concluded assessments does not arise, which would\nrequire more reiteration and it is only in the context of the abated assessment\nunder second proviso which is required to be assessed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

68 for the purpose of making additions on account of share capital. (Copy at Case Law PB 2-3 filed in case of M/s Kota Dall Mill) The revenue filed SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the above order, which has been dismissed vide SLP No 21186/2015 dated 07/12/2015 (Copy at Case Law PB 2-3) Therefore