RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

68 are most unjustified and deserve to be deleted. Additional Ground No.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 9,43,028/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer by way of rate application and increasing the gross receipts whereas the case was selected only for limited scrutiny

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged explained cash deposits in the bank accounts. Finding of ld. CIT(A): Kailash Chand Maheshwari vs. DCIT 5.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

68 of the Act.\n4.6 For the year under consideration the assessee offered interest\nincome of Rs.7,51,443/- and interest expenditure of Rs.5,47,150/-. Since\nthe assessee has not furnished details the claim of expenses the same was\ndisallowed.\n4.7 A survey u/s.133A of the Act was conducted at shop no 106-107 in\nthe Balaji tower occupied

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on\naccount of alleged explained cash deposits in the bank accounts.\nFinding of ld. CIT(A):\n5.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the\nappellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order\nfor the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68/ 69 etc. 13.1 Significantly, the PCIT, while seeking to set aside the action of AO and remitting the matter back for further enquiries, did not bring any definite material to show any incorrect assumption of such facts on this score. Besides, no observations are found in the impugned revisional order suggesting a course to be adopted towards manner

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68/ 69 etc. 13.1 Significantly, the PCIT, while seeking to set aside the action of AO and remitting the matter back for further enquiries, did not bring any definite material to show any incorrect assumption of such facts on this score. Besides, no observations are found in the impugned revisional order suggesting a course to be adopted towards manner

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

68,18,660/- under the head 'Income from Business'.\n4. During the course of post search & assessment proceedings carried out for A.Y. 2010-2011 to 2020-2021, several queries, notices, etc. were issued to the assessee by the Id. Assessing Officer. The assessee appellant always co-operated and submitted detailed replies. The assessee appellant in response to show cause notices

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

68,18,660/-. There is no difference between\nITR filed u/s. 153A and 139 of the Act. Consequently, the case was taken\nup for scrutiny for A.Ys 2018-19. In the assessment proceeding Id. AO\nnoted that during search operation mobile [iphone] phone was taken in\ncustody and some business related charts were identified in the mobile\nphone of Shri

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144A; (ii)an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144A of the Act may be invoked in suitable cases. g) Circular No. F.No.225/162/2016/ITA.II dated11-7-2016: CBDT with the approval of Revenue Secretary decided that there will be three type of notices i.e. 1) Limited Scrutiny, 2) Complete Scrutiny and 3) Manual scrutiny and provided the formats of the notices. It was also urged that henceforth notices will

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

144A of the Act wherein the Addl. CIT considered that\napplication filed before the ITSC is rejected and direction from the Delhi\nHigh Court that material owned by M/s. R. T. Industries cannot be\naccepted. Therefore, Id. AO noted that it is solely related to M/s. RT\nIndustries cannot be accepted and made an addition

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

68,377/- was disclosed by the assessee on its investment made in equities/MF. The investment of the assessee in the equities/MF as on 31.03.2016 was of Rs. 1,49,61,000/- and Rs. 6,47,45,423/- as on 31.03.2017. Amount of Rs. 1.20 lacs were disallowed by the assessee u/s 14A of the IT Act out of misc. expenditure

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

144A stands disposed off and stated to file submission before AO if any. Another opportunity was provided vide this office letter dated 21.09.2021. Requesting therein to file reply by 24.09.2021. However, on this date also no reply was filed. Therefore, another opportunity was provided wide office notice dated 24.09.2021 requesting therein to submit reply by 27.09.2021. However, on this date

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

144A stands disposed off and stated to file submission before AO if any. Another opportunity was provided vide this office letter dated 21.09.2021. Requesting therein to file reply by 24.09.2021. However, on this date also no reply was filed. Therefore, another opportunity was provided wide office notice dated 24.09.2021 requesting therein to submit reply by 27.09.2021. However, on this date