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

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively\nonly for the purpose of making investments which

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

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively\nonly for the purpose of making investments which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

158B (b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

158B (b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

158B (b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable

MANOHAR LAL CHUGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act on the basis of statement of the entry operator and information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. However in the statement of entry operator no question was ever put to the entry operator regarding transaction through the companies, through which alleged cash of appellant was routed. On one hand the AO has oral statements/oral

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 of paper book) " Copies of purchase bills in respect of share purchased (Page No. 61 & 62 of paper book) " Copy of ledger Account of assessee in books of accounts of share brokers through whom the shares were purchased (Page No. 63 & 64 of paper book) " Copy of bank statement showing the payment made against purchases of shares (Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 & 69 of paper book) " Copy of ledger Account from the books of share broker reflecting the details of purchase transactions (Page No. 70 of paper book) " Copy of bank statement showing the payment made against purchases of shares (Page No. 71 of paper book) 11 DCIT Vs Jyoti Agarwal " Acknowledgement of ITR filed

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

158B; the same would fall under the words "and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence" occurring in section 158BB. In the present case, the Assessing Officer was justified in taking the adverse material collected or found during the survey or any other method while making the block assessment

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

158B; the same would fall under the words "and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence" occurring in section 158BB. In the present case, the Assessing Officer was justified in taking the adverse material collected or found during the survey or any other method while making the block assessment

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

158B; the same would fall under the words "and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence" occurring in section 158BB. In the present case, the Assessing Officer was justified in taking the adverse material collected or found during the survey or any other method while making the block assessment

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

158B; the same would fall under the words "and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence" occurring in section 158BB. In the present case, the Assessing Officer was justified in taking the adverse material collected or found during the survey or any other method while making the block assessment

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,19,218/- u/s\n69C of the Income Tax Act. Your honours would appreciate that such action of\nId.AO is contrary to the principle of natural justice.\nIt is thus very clear that being satisfied with the explanation of assessee\nregarding non applicability of provisions of section 40A(3), eventually no addition\nwas made u/s 40A(3) and rather

NARESH KUMAR ARORA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act on the basis of statement of the entry operator and information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. However in the statement of entry operator no question was ever put to the entry operator regarding transaction through the companies, through which alleged cash of appellant was routed. On one hand the AO has oral statements/oral

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S JK INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

Section 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 Addition of Rs. 2,25,68,601/’’- It is also noted that the ld. CIT(A) has concised the observation in respect of the issue as under:- Facts as summarized from the order of AO. ’’3. The AO had information from the investigation wing Mumbai that there are certain entities controlled

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

section 131(1) and 133A, despite being\nspecifically asked for. It is trite law that if the authority rejects such request\nand proceeds to complete the assessment or finalise the proceeding,such\naction shall be not in accordance with the law. Reliance in this regard is\nplaced on the following decisions [E.M.C (Works

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

68 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT into consideration. Both these arguments of the appellant are acceptable. In this case the appellant himself declare the GP 30.60% in the regular books of accounts. Therefore, AO is directed to apply the GP rate of 31% on unaccounted receipts of Rs.74