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

172 (Raj.) has held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can always be explained. (iii) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - Whether where except statement

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

172 (Raj.) has held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can always be explained. (iii) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - Whether where except statement

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

172 (Raj.) has held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can always be explained. (iii) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - Whether where except statement

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

68,624/- [ Rs. 2,14,20,553/- under the head toll and trip expenses and Rs. 2,39,48,071 under the repairs and maintenance ]. Ld. AO made disallowance of Rs. 4,680/- on account delayed payment PF. 7. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,893 on the date of search action as advance received from customers to purchase the ornaments as per their desire/requirement, the appellant has not 4 M/S. KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR placed on record any material to substantiate and prove the statement. No acknowledgement slips, order memo, design details and advance amount linkage

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

172 ITD 396 (ITAT Jaipur)\n“The provisions of section 43CA have been inserted by the Finance Act, 2013\nw.e.f 01.04.2014 relevant to assessment year 2014-15 and if we look at the\nprovisions of sub-section (3) and sub-section (4), it emphasizes a scenario\nwhere the date of agreement fixing value of consideration for transfer

SHRI AESHWARYA JAIN,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1129/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Aeshwarya Jain The Dcit Vs. 65, Shopping Centre Central Circle Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Abjpj 3114 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28-06-2019 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 271Aab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Which Is Void Ab Inito Deserves To Be Quashed.

68,700/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 10.00 lacs. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the of the Act at the returned income. However, the AO held that income of Rs. 10.00 lacs is assessable u/s 69 of the Act and therefore, the same is taxable

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

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

172 (Raj.); Kailashben Manharial\nChokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat):\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Central-ll, Mumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain. (2009)\n178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income\nTax, (1956) 30 (TR 181 (SC), Shree Ganesh Trading Co Vs. Commissioner of\nIncome Tax. Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand), Commissioner

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

68. In para 23 of the decision in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), it was observed as under: "23. This court is of opinion that the ITAT's findings do not reveal any fundamental error, calling for correction. The inferences drawn in respect of undeclared income were premised on the materials found as well as the statements recorded by the assessees

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4)\nof the Act, which is recorded on oath by an officer who is vested with necessary\npowers.\n27. Given this position and the fact that no corroborative evidence was found to\nsupport the addition, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed\nby the Tribunal.\n28. According to us, no substantial question of law arises

A AND J INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 68 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961\"\n6. In this regard we would firstly like to mentioned here that the M/s Vindus\nHolding Limited was not a shell company and it is a listed company and actively\noperating its business. The entire amount was paid by the company through\nbanking channel so genuineness of the transaction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. A AND J INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED, JHOTWARA

section 68 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961\"\n6. In this regard we would firstly like to mentioned here that the M/s Vindus\nHolding Limited was not a shell company and it is a listed company and actively\noperating its business. The entire amount was paid by the company through\nbanking channel so genuineness of the transaction

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

172/- as brokerage income by invoking provisions\nof section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice dated\n21.12.2018 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under section\n271AAB(1)(a)/271AAB(1)(c) should not be initiated against the assessee. Subsequently,\nthe Assessing Officer has imposed penalty u/s 271AAB