SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 68 Case pertains to Asst. Year 1966-67 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cash credits—Addition under s. 68—ITO can make addition under s. 68 as income from undisclosed sources, simultaneously with addition to trading results— However, assessee can claim the addition under s. 68 as covered by intangible additions to trading results—In the present case

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

section 69B of the Act. This section reads as under:- "Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, and the Assessing Officer finds

M/S SOMA BLOCK PRINTS (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

142A(2) the AO may make a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. Therefore it is clear that even if AO is completely satisfied with the correctness of the accounts of the assessee he can refer the case

M/S. BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

68 of the Show Cause Notice has primarily relied upon loose attendance sheet of employees and workers RUD-10, 11, 12, 13, 17, statement U/s. 14 of various buyers and survey reports of commercial taxes department carried out on 19.1.2010 wherein there is admission on the part of notice on short quantity during the course of physical verification of stocks

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. MUKESH KUMAR SOMANI, KISHANGARH

In the result appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

68,04,230/-. During the year the assessee having income from Business or Profession and Income from other sources. Notices were issued from time and time and in responses to these notices the assessee filed the details. The seized books of account and other books of account have been examined and desired details were filed by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. ALOK MALPANI, KISHANGARH

In the result appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

68,04,230/-. During the year the assessee having income from Business or Profession and Income from other sources. Notices were issued from time and time and in responses to these notices the assessee filed the details. The seized books of account and other books of account have been examined and desired details were filed by the assessee

495 TRIPUTI COTTAGE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cost of construction/investment on the basis of valuation determined by the DVO estimating the cost of construction of hotel building. 5. The assessee challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and also challenged

TRIPUTI COTTAGE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cost of construction/investment on the basis of valuation determined by the DVO estimating the cost of construction of hotel building. 5. The assessee challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and also challenged

TRIPUTI COTTAGE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cost of construction/investment on the basis of valuation determined by the DVO estimating the cost of construction of hotel building. 5. The assessee challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and also challenged

ITO, BEHROR vs. TRIPUTI COTTAGE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cost of construction/investment on the basis of valuation determined by the DVO estimating the cost of construction of hotel building. 5. The assessee challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and also challenged

TRIPUTI COTTAGE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cost of construction/investment on the basis of valuation determined by the DVO estimating the cost of construction of hotel building. 5. The assessee challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and also challenged

HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 145(3) of the Act, and referred the matter for valuation before the District Valuation Officer, which was not done by ld. AO in the instant case. Since the books of accounts have been accepted, the expenditure towards construction recorded therein deserves to be accepted. 138 TTJ 116 ITO vs. NiteshMaheshwari (Jp ‘B’) Income from undisclosed sources – Addition