SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68.\nIdentification of buyers\nSo far as identification of buyers are concerned, assessee has furnished full detail\nof names and addresses along with their PIN code numbers. (Copy is placed here\nalso) Since, assessee discharged his onus lay upon him by filing of the detail, AO\nobservation that the details are incomplete and invoices are bogus

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.” 3

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 /

section 115BBE 9. That the appellant craves to add/alter/amend the Grounds of Appeal before the final hearing is completed. 3 Geeta Devi Agarwal vs. ITO 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 05.08.2017 declaring total income

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)

section 115BBE 9. That the appellant craves to add/alter/amend the Grounds of Appeal before the final hearing is completed. 3 Geeta Devi Agarwal vs. ITO 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 05.08.2017 declaring total income

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)

3) on 13.12.2019 and without considering the submissions of the Appellant had made an addition of Rs. 2,01,92,401/- under section 68 of the Act in respect of the unsecured loan taken during the year from 53 parties for which the Appellant could not furnish the balance confirmation on the ground that the Appellant had failed

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 40(a)(ia) provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are generally allowed under the general section. The computation u/s.29 has to be made u/s.145 on the basis of books of account regularly maintained by the assessee which the Assessing Officer did by estimating the profit at 5% of the sales. The learned

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

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

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

156 of the Act and the notice for initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act.” 16. However, the respondent/revenue will be at liberty to proceed with the assessment process, albeit, under the provisions of Section 144B of the Act. Needless to add, if a show cause notice-cum-draft assessment

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)

3), Kolkata that they are Directors in the various companies which is controlled & managed by Mr. Anjani Banka. Statement of Mr. Anjani Banka was also recorded by the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-2(3), Kolkata on 29.03.2014 wherein he accepted that he is engaged in providing accommodation entries in form of share capital, unsecured loan, LTCG etc and to facilitate

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

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

68-71 of paper book) Copy of Balance Sheet of Assessment Year 2013-14. (page no. 72 of paper book) Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Kota. Copy of Capital Account of Assessment Year 2013-14 (page no. 73 of paper book Copy of Assessment Order dated 22.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kota

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

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) of I.T. Act, 1961. The form ITNS-150 showing calculation of tax and interest chargeable, if any, is attached herewith and forms a part of this Order. A notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act and challan for payment of tax, if payable, is hereby issued. Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

68 invoked 1. 2011-12 24,99,795/- 20% 18,83,130/- - 2. 2012-13 10,61,488/- 30% 60,67,378/- - √ 3. 2013-14 73,94,044/- 22.50% 3

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

68 invoked 1. 2011-12 24,99,795/- 20% 18,83,130/- - 2. 2012-13 10,61,488/- 30% 60,67,378/- - √ 3. 2013-14 73,94,044/- 22.50% 3