UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per section 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 6 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. 9.3 I have considered

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per section 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 6 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. 9.3 I have considered

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, not merely the peak. Relied on: PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) Pr. CIT v. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 138 taxmann.com 499 (SC) 7. Misplaced Reliance on Abhisar Buildwell (SC) Inapplicable The assessee's claim that reassessment under Section

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

138 of the Negotiable 5 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings." 6. Supporting Case Laws: 6.1 It is submitted that

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

138 of the Negotiable 5 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings." 6. Supporting Case Laws: 6.1 It is submitted that

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

Section 68 of the Act, Assessee from the sale of stock of Assessee should maintain books of M/s Yamini Investment Company Ltd accounts maintained by the Appellant. was made u/s 68 of the Act , on In the present case , there is no such alleged reason that the Appellant has finding by the Ld.AO that the Appellant routed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

Section 143(3) of the Act. This, therefore, was not material which was subsequently unearthed during the search which was not already available to the AO. Consequently, the additions sought to be made by the AO on account of security deposits were rightly deleted by the CIT (A).” Thus the essential corollary of these decisions is that no addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

Section 143(3) of the Act. This, therefore, was not material which was subsequently unearthed during the search which was not already available to the AO. Consequently, the additions sought to be made by the AO on account of security deposits were rightly deleted by the CIT (A).” Thus the essential corollary of these decisions is that no addition

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section 68 of the IT Act. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the repayment of loan for credit entries also does not in itself prove the transactions to be genuine. Shell companies are used to provide accommodation entries and even reversal of an entry does not ipso facto prove the genuineness of the initial credit entry. In support

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section 68 of the IT Act. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the repayment of loan for credit entries also does not in itself prove the transactions to be genuine. Shell companies are used to provide accommodation entries and even reversal of an entry does not ipso facto prove the genuineness of the initial credit entry. In support

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

section 68 of the IT Act. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the repayment of loan for credit entries also does not in itself prove the transactions to be genuine. Shell companies are used to provide accommodation entries and even reversal of an entry does not ipso facto prove the genuineness of the initial credit entry. In support

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section 68 of the IT Act. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the repayment of loan for credit entries also does not in itself prove the transactions to be genuine. Shell companies are used to provide accommodation entries and even reversal of an entry does not ipso facto prove the genuineness of the initial credit entry. In support

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 263 of the Act upon the assessee which deserves to be quashed for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed the detailed written submission as under:- ‘’The impugned order passed u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of S. 263 of the Act on various grounds, as discussed herein below. 1. Legal Position on S. 263 Judicial

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

section 143(3) in respect of the share applicant companies, details of which are as under :- Assessment u/s 143(3) : Name of Company Assessment Income Assessment year Assessed Order u/s 143(3) at PB pg M/s Teac 2005-06 13,980 451-453 Consultants Pvt. Ltd M/s Teac 2006-07 45,395 454-455 Consultants Pvt. Ltd M/s Teac

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

section 143(3) in respect of the share applicant companies, details of which are as under :- Assessment u/s 143(3) : Name of Company Assessment Income Assessment year Assessed Order u/s 143(3) at PB pg M/s Teac 2005-06 13,980 451-453 Consultants Pvt. Ltd M/s Teac 2006-07 45,395 454-455 Consultants Pvt. Ltd M/s Teac

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

section 143(3) in respect of the share applicant companies, details of which are as under :- Assessment u/s 143(3) : Name of Company Assessment Income Assessment year Assessed Order u/s 143(3) at PB pg M/s Teac 2005-06 13,980 451-453 Consultants Pvt. Ltd M/s Teac 2006-07 45,395 454-455 Consultants Pvt. Ltd M/s Teac

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR

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

68-96 assessment proceeding 4. Assessee's submission dated 19.09.2022 during the course of 97-142 assessment proceeding 5. Assessee's submission dated 27.09.2022 during the course of 143-247 assessment proceeding Case laws relied upon 6. High Court of Delhi (Commissioner of Income tax v. Manish 248-261 Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 204 Taxman 106 (Delhi) 7. High

M/S NAVJEEVAN TRADE & COMMODITIES P.LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result the same are treated as infructuous

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 46.3 Applicability: This amendment takes effect from 1st of April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years.” 5. It was accordingly submitted by the ld AR that the action of the Assessing