SHRI GOVIND NARAIN JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any cogent reason and hence needs to deleted. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance made by the ld. AO of Rs. 18,62,147/- out of interest and bank charges without considering the submissions made and evidences adduced

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

68 of the Act as against addition made by ld. AO u/s 69A and taxing the same by applying provisions of section 115BBE of IT. Act alleging the same as undisclosed income of appellant and further erred in reducing the same income from business income declared by the assessee and adding the same as Income from other sources

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

142 of the Act was issued on 29.08.2019 and served to the\nassessee through speed post due to change of incumbent as per section\n129 of the Act. Ld. AO noted in his order that the search record regarding\nthe assessee was also observed and examined thoroughly.\n3.4 While proceeding so initiated Id. AO while going through the balance

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)

2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot

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)

2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68. [Russian Technology Center (P.) Ltd. 2013 Taxmann.com 400 (Delhi-Trib)] 2.8. Mere inadequacy of an enquiry or insufficiency of material on record can be a ground to invoke powers under Section 263. Under identical set of facts, 22 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur [2021] 214 TTJ (Chd.) 908, jurisdiction under Section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. In regard to the details of all the 6 persons from whom such advance against sale of agriculture land was received, it is submitted that such advances were received through brokerls in open market, which is a normal and prevailing practice. All the transactions have been entered through broker. The names of all these persons have been given

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. In regard to the details of all the 6 persons from whom such advance against sale of agriculture land was received, it is submitted that such advances were received through brokerls in open market, which is a normal and prevailing practice. All the transactions have been entered through broker. The names of all these persons have been given

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. In regard to the details of all the 6 persons from whom such advance against sale of agriculture land was received, it is submitted that such advances were received through brokerls in open market, which is a normal and prevailing practice. All the transactions have been entered through broker. The names of all these persons have been given

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. In regard to the details of all the 6 persons from whom such advance against sale of agriculture land was received, it is submitted that such advances were received through brokerls in open market, which is a normal and prevailing practice. All the transactions have been entered through broker. The names of all these persons have been given

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to him and the same were complied by the assesse. However, in the assessment order the learned AO without rejecting the books of accounts treated the SBNs of Rs. 4,35,91,454/- deposited at Jodhpur in HDFC Bank, as not explained u/s 68

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

68,81,546/- and shown long term capital gain of Rs.5,39,67,684/- and claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs.5,39,67,384/-. The AO noted that the sale of agricultural lands at Muhana, Sanganer have been made on 06/02/2013 and further agricultural lands purchased on 28/08/2014 at Mauja Shiekpur, Fatehabad. Thus, it was noted by the AO that

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition made by the ld. AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A). 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2). No such notice was issued and therefore order is bad. ACIT vs.\nHotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC).\n\n8. Addition u/s 68 : (a) That the learned Authorities below have grossly erred in law\nand facts in invoking section 68 without jurisdiction and per- sea illegal because this\nsection can be invoke where

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act.” 4 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in business of Real estate. The assessee e-filed its return of income on 22.10.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 15,62,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. A notice u/s 143(2

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

2,28,000),\nthe assessee was required vide notice u/s 142(1) to furnish the details of\nmonthly sales (cash & credit), monthly Purchase (cash & credit) Monthly\ncash deposit into bank account for the relevant period i.e. 1 April to 08 Nov,\n2016 for the financial year, 2015-16 & the relevant year i.e. 2016-17\nMoreover, the details of Daily stock

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

2,97,000 30.11.2016 Being amount of paintings sold 1,85,800 6 Sanjay Lunia vs.ITO It was observed that the cash balance as per cash book as on 01.04.2019 was 20145.31 only and as on 28.04.2016 the cash balance was negligible cash balance of Rs. 4438.01 only. On perusal of the cash book of the financial year

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68 of the Act read with section 115BBE\nof the Act.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an\nappeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant\nfinding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:\nGround Nos.1, 2 & 3\n5.2 I have considered the facts

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

2. Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal vs DCIT (ITA No. 3281/Ahd/2009 AY 2004-05 dated 5 August 2011) 3. Shri Lovish Singhal vs ITO (ITA No 142 to 146/Jodh/2018 for AY 2014- 15 dated 25 May 2018) and applying the same on the facts of the case in hand, decided that the provisions of S.115BBE were not applicable and hence