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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2 crore opted\nfor presumption taxation U/s 44AD.Although he was not required to maintain\nregular books of accounts but since was also registered with RVAT Act 2003, he\nmaintained cash book, ledger day to day stock register, invoices bills etc. Entire\npayments to suppliers were made through banking channel and sales were made\nto customer for which assessee issued bills

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

iv), (v), (vi) or (via) of said clause in respect of any amount credited or paid out of their income. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2018 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2018-19 and subsequent years. “ 47. On perusal of above provisions, It is clear that as per the existing provisions

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals with the information received during search and seizure operations under Section 132 requires fulfillment of pre- requisites

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals with the information received during search and seizure operations under Section 132 requires fulfillment of pre- requisites

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68. [Russian Technology Center (P.) Ltd. 2013 Taxmann.com 400 (Delhi-Trib)] 2.8. Mere inadequacy of an enquiry or insufficiency of material on record can be a ground to invoke powers under Section 263. Under identical set of facts, 22 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur [2021] 214 TTJ (Chd.) 908, jurisdiction under Section

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

iv) The statement of assessee म" अपनी मानिसक शा""त के िलए "फलहाल 201,00,000/- (दो करोड एक लाख माऽ) "पये अपनी अघो"षत आय मानते हुए सम"प"त करता हूँ itself witnessed that the surrender was made for the income which is liable to be taxed (s) and not for the income which is not subject matter

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

iv) The statement of assessee म" अपनी मानिसक शा""त के िलए "फलहाल 201,00,000/- (दो करोड एक लाख माऽ) "पये अपनी अघो"षत आय मानते हुए सम"प"त करता हूँ itself witnessed that the surrender was made for the income which is liable to be taxed (s) and not for the income which is not subject matter

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

iv) The statement of assessee म" अपनी मानिसक शा""त के िलए "फलहाल 201,00,000/- (दो करोड एक लाख माऽ) "पये अपनी अघो"षत आय मानते हुए सम"प"त करता हूँ itself witnessed that the surrender was made for the income which is liable to be taxed (s) and not for the income which is not subject matter

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

iv) The statement of assessee म" अपनी मानिसक शा""त के िलए "फलहाल 201,00,000/- (दो करोड एक लाख माऽ) "पये अपनी अघो"षत आय मानते हुए सम"प"त करता हूँ itself witnessed that the surrender was made for the income which is liable to be taxed (s) and not for the income which is not subject matter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

iv) A corresponding amendment has also been made in the definition of ‘income’ u/s 2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. The relevant portion reads as under:- "(xvi) any consideration received for issue of shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shore referred to in clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of Section

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

iv) A corresponding amendment has also been made in the definition of ‘income’ u/s 2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. The relevant portion reads as under:- "(xvi) any consideration received for issue of shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shore referred to in clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of Section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

17 of the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of State Bank of India Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578 and at para 14 referring to the amendment made in section 194A(3)(v) of the Act held that deduction of income derived by way of interest from the investment in the form of FDRs with other bank

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

17 of the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of State Bank of India Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578 and at para 14 referring to the amendment made in section 194A(3)(v) of the Act held that deduction of income derived by way of interest from the investment in the form of FDRs with other bank

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

17 of the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of State Bank of India Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578 and at para 14 referring to the amendment made in section 194A(3)(v) of the Act held that deduction of income derived by way of interest from the investment in the form of FDRs with other bank

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

68,81,546/- and shown long term capital gain of Rs.5,39,67,684/- and claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs.5,39,67,384/-. The AO noted that the sale of agricultural lands at Muhana, Sanganer have been made on 06/02/2013 and further agricultural lands purchased on 28/08/2014 at Mauja Shiekpur, Fatehabad. Thus, it was noted by the AO that

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

17 Abhay Chordia, Jaipur. 4.4. Ld. AO disbelieved the cash sales for the sole reason that details of the buyers, including their name, PAN, addresses etc, were not available with the assessee, therefore, the same were not verifiable. 4.5. It is submitted that the law nowhere prohibits making cash sales. Assessee by selling the goods in cash did not violate

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

17. Being aggrieved from the said addition made by the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The findingsof the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is reproduced as under:- “ Ground No. 2(a) This ground relates to addition of Rs. 83,96,410/- under section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. The appellant

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)

section 115BBE are warranted. Ground No. 2 2. The learned AO grossly erred in law and on facts in not accepting agricultural income. Looking into the facts of the ground, brought on record by the appellant assessee it is evident that in a limited scrutiny case. AO cannot in queue about issue not covered by the CASS reasons

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

iv) CIT v/s. Raisons Industries Ltd., 288 ITR 322 (SC): The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The power of revision under section 263 is exercised by a higher authority. It is a special provision. The revisional jurisdiction is vested in the Commissioner. An order there under can be passed if it is found that the order