GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

68 on income of Rs. 645810/- surrendered by the assessee in revised computation which is again illegal and deserves to be deleted. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT Appeal has erred in passing the order in the name of deceased persons in-spite of the fact that this fact

SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 on income of Rs. 645810/- surrendered by the assessee in revised computation which is again illegal and deserves to be deleted. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT Appeal has erred in passing the order in the name of deceased persons in-spite of the fact that this fact

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)

section 68, since amount of loan received by assessee was returned to loan party during year itself and all transactions were carried out through banking channels, impugned addition was to be deleted. b. PCIT Vs. Ojas Tarmake (P.) Ltd. [2023] 156

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

68 and 69A of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The Appellate prays to leave, to add, to alter, amend, the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of appeal

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving the following findings:- 10 SDC Construction, Jaipur. “Decision:- 3. I have examined facts of the case as also gone

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party

M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

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

Bench: Him.

section 68. All the aforesaid papers and documents stood submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer under letter dated 07/12/2020 and 15/2/2021. Copies of these letters are available on the additional Paper Book Page No. 16-18being submitted with this submission. It is further submitted that in the assessment order, the Learned Assessing Officer has mentioned regarding the reply

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

156 taxmann.com\n205 (Jharkhand)[16-08-2023] that interest under section 234A/section\n234B has to be charged on assessed income and not on returned\nincome of an assessee. The relevant para are as under-\n15..\nA bare perusal of section 234A shows that the interest has to be\ncharged on the amount of the tax on the total

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. RISHIRAJ SINGH, JHALAWAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68, since amount of loan received by\nassessee was returned to loan party during year itself and all transactions were carried out\nthrough banking channels, impugned addition was to be deleted to drive home to this contention\nld. AR of the assessee serviced the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal\nCommissioner of Income

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

Bench: Him.

68 of the Act and burden of proving CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR that apparent is not real. Heavy burden is 540 (SC) required to be discharged by department to prove that apparent is not real. It is trite law that burden of proving that apparent (capital gain claim) is not real (bogus) is on the person

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

68 of the Act in the form of | unsecured loan and partner’s | capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant to Previous Year 2009-10 is assessed at Rs. 70,02,98,459/- u/s 153A read

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

68 of the Act in the form of | unsecured loan and partner’s | capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant to Previous Year 2009-10 is assessed at Rs. 70,02,98,459/- u/s 153A read

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

68 of the Act in the form of | unsecured loan and partner’s | capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant to Previous Year 2009-10 is assessed at Rs. 70,02,98,459/- u/s 153A read

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

68 of the Act in the form of | unsecured loan and partner’s | capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant to Previous Year 2009-10 is assessed at Rs. 70,02,98,459/- u/s 153A read

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133A of the Act, without any\nindependent corroborative evidence or material substantiating such addition, is legally\nunsustainable and devoid of merit. The settled position of law, consistently upheld by\nvarious judicial forums including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts, and\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunals, categorically holds that statements obtained during\nsurvey operations lack evidentiary value and cannot

AMAR PRATAP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

156 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat), in which it was held that where assessee showed unsecured loans received during relevant assessment year and AO made addition on ground that assessee failed to discharge onus of liability as laid down under section 68