SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68 has already been met with in the assessment proceeding and 36 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur the issue is raised is without considering the facts already on record submitted vide reply dated 26.12.2019 to the AO. The ld. PCIT in her SCN in point no. v and vi raised those issues which were

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

119\n(Delhi)(2011). In this case it was held by the Hon. Court that\n\"The initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to\nobviate the mischief of Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their\ncreditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when\nthese three ingredients are established prima

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

68 (Allahabad)/[2021] 438 ITR 657 (Allahabad)\n[10-02-2020) held that Where Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of\ncontract/subcontract income but failed to add interest income shown in books as\nother income, subsequently, on basis of audit objection, Assessing Officer was\njustified in invoking section 147/148 and reassessing 'interest income\nHon'ble Supreme Court

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

119; or (d)the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.". 7.2 In reaching such conclusion, I rely on the following judicial rulings: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

119 taxmann.com 358 (Karnataka) Shringar Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4, Kolkata [2021] 128 taxmann.com 199 (Kolkata Trib.) 48. In view of the above, Impugned Order passed u/s 263 is without authority of law and Ld. PCIT was not justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. GROUND NO. 2 Under the facts

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)

68,69,69A,69B,69C or 69D. 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities as regards the addition sustained. As regards the charge of tax u/s. 115BBE he has vehemently argued that provision section 4 being the charging section does not support the contentions of the assessee so raised

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)

68,69,69A,69B,69C or 69D. 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities as regards the addition sustained. As regards the charge of tax u/s. 115BBE he has vehemently argued that provision section 4 being the charging section does not support the contentions of the assessee so raised

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

119 of the present Act and this circular provided that if any such outstanding loans or advances of past years were repaid on or before June 30, 1955, they would not be taken into account in determining the tax liability of the shareholders to whom such loans or advances were given. This circular was clearly contrary to the plain language

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

119 of the Act dated 06.09.2021 provided exclusions to section 144B of the Act. Thus, in view of the above background, pending assessment proceedings were taken further. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act seeking details/justification/explanation was issued on 10.09.2021. This notice was sent through ITBA on the given e- mail Id in the latest ROI filed

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

119 of the Act dated 06.09.2021 provided exclusions to section 144B of the Act. Thus, in view of the above background, pending assessment proceedings were taken further. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act seeking details/justification/explanation was issued on 10.09.2021. This notice was sent through ITBA on the given e- mail Id in the latest ROI filed

RAJASTHAN TRANSMAT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 7(2),, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

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

119 (Mumbai- Trib) the Hon'ble ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'G' in the case of Income-tax Officer 1(3)(2) v. General Traders (P) Ltd. vide IT APPEAL NO. 4197 (MUM) OF 2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 on FEBRUARY 24, 2020, wherein it was held as under- ‘’14. From the above decision of honourable jurisdictional High Court it is abundantly

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

b)\nthe person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of\nsuch company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum\nso credited; and\nsuch explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to\nbe satisfactory:\nProvided also that nothing contained in the first proviso

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

b)\nsuch explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to\nbe satisfactory:\nProvided also that nothing contained in the first proviso or second proviso shall apply if the\nperson, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a\nventure capital company as referred to in clause (23FB

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

b)\nthe person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of\nsuch company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum\nso credited; and\nsuch explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to\nbe satisfactory:\nProvided also that nothing contained in the first proviso

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

119 of the Act from 30th September, 2014 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 for all purposes of the Act. Accordingly, the AO levied the penalty @ 10% on the undisclosed income of Rs. 5,73,33,348/- U/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act. Regarding the additional income of Rs. 1,77,039/- disclosed in the ITR, the AO levied

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

68, 69 & 69A of the Act. As such, the assessee was able to justify the source of income surrendered during survey operation. Therefore we are of the view that the same cannot be treated as deemed income. Once, the income goes out of the preview of the deeming provision, the provision of section 115BBE of the Act cannot

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

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

68 r.w.s 115 BBE of the Act. Therefore, the\nallegation and finding of the Ld. CIT is factually incorrect that the FAO\nhas charged the tax at normal rates only. The AO has invoked the\nSection 115BBE of the Act but committed a clerical error in not\ncomputing the special tax in accordance therewith. At the best it could

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

119 taxmann.com 358 (Karnataka) (PB page 146- 150). In this case it was held that where assessee filed all details before Assessing Officer (AO) that no expenditure under section 14A was attributable to exempt dividend income earned by it during year and AO accepted same, since AO had taken a plausible view, impugned invocation of revision under section

SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,68,00,000/- obtained from Arjit Securities Pvt. Ltd of Rs. 81 Lacs. Seatrans Dan Shiroma Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 90 Lacs, Parmatma Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd of Rs. 72 Lacs and Yomroosh Investment Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 25 Lacs are bogus share application money and added as per provision of section 68