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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 634/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 cuke Income Tax Officer, Vasudev Hemrajani, Vs. Ward 6(2), Jaipur Arjun Nagar, Jaipur

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

119 (Jalpur - Trib.) it was held that orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2011-12- Where AO had made sufficient enquiries, considered survey records and surrender made by assessee and after considering submissions of assessee completed assessment proceedings under section 143(3), assessment order could not be held to be an erroneous order which was prejudicial

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

119 (Jalpur - Trib.) it was held that orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2011-12- Where AO had made sufficient enquiries, considered survey records and surrender made by assessee and after considering submissions of assessee completed assessment proceedings under section 143(3), assessment order could not be held to be an erroneous order which was prejudicial

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)

20-03-2015 fixing the case for hearing on 25-03-2015. The AO thus noted that ld. AR of the assessee filed the reply on 25-03-2015 mentioning that the 4 RAJASTHAN TRANSMAT PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR shareholding companies / share holders have submitted the details required by the AO u/s 133(6) but according

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

119, held that: "The initial onus is upon the assessce to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors (4) thoir creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, the department is required to undertake further exercise. 8.5 It has been

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

B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 187/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18 cuke Castamet Works Private Limited Principle Commissioner of Vs. Village – Kharwa,Tehsil- Masuda Income

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

b), jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be\ncalled in question by an assessee after expiry of one month from date of\nwhich he was served with a notice under section 142(1) or after\ncompletion of assessment, whichever was earlier - Held, yes\nIn the present case the jurisdiction of ITO, Ward 4(4), Jaipur was not\nchallenged

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.”

20 Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT lacs has been received from Shri Umesh Bhandari. Confirmation of Shri Umesh Bhandari and copy of his bank account is enclosed. It is submitted that the bank account of Umesh Bhandari is a joint account with Jayasree Bhandari. The bank account has got heavy balance and there are several transactions exceeding Rs.25 lacs

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