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

154 taxmann.com 615 (Rajkot - Trib.) held as under - "Further the AO having made addition u/s 68 of the Act, taxing it at the rate prescribed u/s 1558BE of the Act was a natural corollary. Admittedly the law itself prescribes a special rate of tax for additions made u/s 68, 69,69A/B/C of the Act u/s 115BBE of the Act. Even

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)

154 of the Act….” [Emphasis Supplied] Thus, having not invoked Section 69 or not recorded any satisfaction in this regard, lower authorities was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE. B. Where any non-income is converted by AO to income, as per Section 68 to 69B then only Section 115BBE can be made

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)

154 of the Act….” [Emphasis Supplied] Thus, having not invoked Section 69 or not recorded any satisfaction in this regard, lower authorities was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE. B. Where any non-income is converted by AO to income, as per Section 68 to 69B then only Section 115BBE can be made

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 154. Even subsequent interpretation of the law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would constitute "mistake apparent from records". • B.V.K. Seshavataram Vs. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 633 (AP)) • ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) • Circular: No. 68 [F.No.245/17/71-A & PAC), dated 17-11-1971 6.8 In view of the above, the action

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)

1) Where the total income of an assessee, (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the Return of Income furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section

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

1).\nThe above judgement also needs to be considered in the interpretation of the \nidentifying the block of 10 years of the section 153C of the Act. There are \nnumerous judgements wherein it has been held that provisions of section 158BD \nand 153C are in substance similar and in section 158BD the block period is not \ndependent

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

68 of the Act read with section 115BBE \nof the Act. \n\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: \n\nGround Nos.1, 2 & 3 \n\n5.2 I have considered

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1 (SC) is placed to contend that once an assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness, then it is for the AO to conduct a further enquiry and call for more details before invoking Section 68 of the I.T. Act. N Because the Appellant had placed on record confirmations of parties with

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

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68,75,687.25\n3.\nInterest on Term Loan\n1,42,38,661.07\n4.\nInterest paid to NBFC\n1,31,17,681.00\n5.\nInterest on LC and Hundies\n1,13,52,841.24\n6.\nBank Charges\n33,30,812.44\n7.\nInterest on delayed payments\n2,99,209.00\n8\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n\"Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly\nobserved that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk)\nvide assessment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and secondly, in the computation of tax liability, the tax liability on the undisclosed income has been determined as per slab rate of taxation applicable to an individual and not at the rate of 30% as specified in section 115BBE. Thus, both

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

68,932/- to the\nperson covered u/s. 13(3) of the Act and the same was considered as diversion of\nfunds for the benefit of the trustees. Thus, the notice no where suggested that the\naction of the PCIT is proposed to cancel the registration of the trust in a new law\nand that too retrospectively. He also pointed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

154 (Bom)held that “The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief by the Assessing Officer that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that such is the case before he proceeds to issue a notice under section