LAXMI NARAYAN SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

5,50,831/- (36,16,750\n* 15.23= 550831)]. That market value arrived at Rs. 41,67,581 was\ncompared with the physical stock of Rs. 44,04,209/- and thereby the\nexcess stock of Rs. 2,36,628/- [ 44,04,209 – 41,67,581] was determined\nand added to the income of the assessee.\n5.4 The assessee also surrendered

PRAKASH CHAND SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)JAIPUR, JAIPUR

5,50,831/- (36,16,750\n* 15.23= 550831)]. That market value arrived at Rs. 41,67,581 was\ncompared with the physical stock of Rs. 44,04,209/- and thereby the\nexcess stock of Rs. 2,36,628/- [ 44,04,209 – 41,67,581] was determined\nand added to the income of the assessee.\n5.4 The assessee also surrendered

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 to 69D has applied Section 115 BBE, which is incorrect as per the relevant scheme. 2.3. Ld. CIT(A) at Page 13 of her order has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd, ITA No. 157/JP/2017, for the proposition that the amendment brought about in Section

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 to 69D has applied Section 115 BBE, which is incorrect as per the relevant scheme. 2.3. Ld. CIT(A) at Page 13 of her order has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd, ITA No. 157/JP/2017, for the proposition that the amendment brought about in Section

SHRI HARI NARAIN GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

133A (1) of the I.T. Act was also conducted at business premises of the assessee. No incriminating documents, cash or valuable items were found during the course of survey proceedings. Finally, the cash of Rs. 22,19,590/- which was found from the bag of Shri Atul Kumar Sharma was seized in course of search action. 3. It was further

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 and 69A of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The Appellate prays to leave, to add, to alter, amend, the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of appeal

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case

SH. TAIYAB KHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

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

5. 5/10/2019 with annexure 6. Copy of Notice dated 16/10/2019 issued under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 61-62 Copy of Reply dated 11.10.2019 issued under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of date 63-65 7. 18/9/2019 Copy of Reply dated 22.10.2019 issued under section

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act while the provisions of 68 as such are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts because the sale transaction are already part of the income which is already credited in Profit & Loss Account, therefore there is no occasion to again consider the same as income of the appellant

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)

5. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting of Rs. 1,29,52,423/- in spite of the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee has refused the ownership of seized papers /documents. However, the ownership was duly established in assessment order. Since the assessee

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)

5. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting of Rs. 1,29,52,423/- in spite of the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee has refused the ownership of seized papers /documents. However, the ownership was duly established in assessment order. Since the assessee

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)

5. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting of Rs. 1,29,52,423/- in spite of the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee has refused the ownership of seized papers /documents. However, the ownership was duly established in assessment order. Since the assessee

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)

5. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting of Rs. 1,29,52,423/- in spite of the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee has refused the ownership of seized papers /documents. However, the ownership was duly established in assessment order. Since the assessee

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)

5. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting of Rs. 1,29,52,423/- in spite of the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee has refused the ownership of seized papers /documents. However, the ownership was duly established in assessment order. Since the assessee

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)

5. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting of Rs. 1,29,52,423/- in spite of the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee has refused the ownership of seized papers /documents. However, the ownership was duly established in assessment order. Since the assessee

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

133A of the Act to be considered the Income u/s 69 and 69A of the Act respectively and further chargeability of income-tax thereupon u/s 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961". Therefore, the AO is directed to verify this issue while finalizing the assessment considering the observations mentioned herein above. Thereafter, based on outcome of such enquiries and verification, necessary

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 115BE of the Act, in the present case for taxing the income at higher rate the provisions is not applicable in the present case hence the same is illegal, bad in law, against the principles of natural justice. The same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well