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)

b) of sub­section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under this Act ;]” Therefore, CIT(A) is not “Assessing Officer” so he cannot change the section 69A from 68 applied by the AO. Section 68 is prescribed for different

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

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;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 694 & 695/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 cuke Radhakishan Beniwal DCIT Vs. Ward No. 14, Behind Kishan Hostel Cirecle

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

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;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 694 & 695/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 cuke Radhakishan Beniwal DCIT Vs. Ward No. 14, Behind Kishan Hostel Cirecle

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

B. P. Mundra\nPage 7 of 8\n7\nITA NOP. 209/JPR/2025\nJAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR\nThus, treating purchases worth Rs.1,82,05,040/- as bogus purchases without rejecting\nbooks of accounts is bad in law & facts.\n2. Kindly allow to submit GOA 2 and GOA 4 to GOA 6 together.\nGOA 2: \"That the order

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

68-71 of paper book) Copy of Balance Sheet of Assessment Year 2013-14. (page no. 72 of paper book) Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Kota. Copy of Capital Account of Assessment Year 2013-14 (page no. 73 of paper book Copy of Assessment Order dated 22.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kota

JARINA BEGUM,KOTA vs. ITO WARD -1(4), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

sections": [ "148", "144", "68", "249(4)(b)", "147", "151(2)", "274", "271(1)(b)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "115BBE", "120

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

120/-. Against the said order of the ld. CIT(A), both the revenue and the assessee are in further appeals before the ITAT. 30. It was vehemently argued by the ld CIT-DR that after considering all the facts and circumstances, the assessee has recorded his statement U/s 132(4) of the Act and surrendered the amount in respect

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

120/-. Against the said order of the ld. CIT(A), both the revenue and the assessee are in further appeals before the ITAT. 30. It was vehemently argued by the ld CIT-DR that after considering all the facts and circumstances, the assessee has recorded his statement U/s 132(4) of the Act and surrendered the amount in respect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

120/-. Against the said order of the ld. CIT(A), both the revenue and the assessee are in further appeals before the ITAT. 30. It was vehemently argued by the ld CIT-DR that after considering all the facts and circumstances, the assessee has recorded his statement U/s 132(4) of the Act and surrendered the amount in respect

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)

68-69 15 Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT g. Copy of Confirmations & Affidavit 70-73 2. Copy of documentary evidences to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of M/s Anchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. a. Copy of Share application form 74-75 b. Copy of Board Resolution 76-77 c. Copy of PAN Card 78 d. Copy of Bank Statement

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

B C D 2014-15 16400.440 2900 4,75,61,276 2015-16 11641.27 2658 3,09,42,496 2016-17 9565.430 2850 2,72,61,475 The column D of the above table shows the undisclosed net profit of the assessee in the respective assessment year as mentioned at column A of the table. The same is unaccounted income

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

B C D 2014-15 16400.440 2900 4,75,61,276 2015-16 11641.27 2658 3,09,42,496 2016-17 9565.430 2850 2,72,61,475 The column D of the above table shows the undisclosed net profit of the assessee in the respective assessment year as mentioned at column A of the table. The same is unaccounted income

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

B C D 2014-15 16400.440 2900 4,75,61,276 2015-16 11641.27 2658 3,09,42,496 2016-17 9565.430 2850 2,72,61,475 The column D of the above table shows the undisclosed net profit of the assessee in the respective assessment year as mentioned at column A of the table. The same is unaccounted income

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

B C D 2014-15 16400.440 2900 4,75,61,276 2015-16 11641.27 2658 3,09,42,496 2016-17 9565.430 2850 2,72,61,475 The column D of the above table shows the undisclosed net profit of the assessee in the respective assessment year as mentioned at column A of the table. The same is unaccounted income

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

B C D 2014-15 16400.440 2900 4,75,61,276 2015-16 11641.27 2658 3,09,42,496 2016-17 9565.430 2850 2,72,61,475 The column D of the above table shows the undisclosed net profit of the assessee in the respective assessment year as mentioned at column A of the table. The same is unaccounted income

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

B C D 2014-15 16400.440 2900 4,75,61,276 2015-16 11641.27 2658 3,09,42,496 2016-17 9565.430 2850 2,72,61,475 The column D of the above table shows the undisclosed net profit of the assessee in the respective assessment year as mentioned at column A of the table. The same is unaccounted income

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

120 or any other provision of this Act, and the [Additional Commissioner or] [Additional Director or] [Joint Commissioner or Joint Director] who is directed under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under this Act;] Thus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

120 or any other provision of this Act, and the [Additional Commissioner or] [Additional Director or] [Joint Commissioner or Joint Director] who is directed under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under this Act;] Thus

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows