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

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)

section 69C of the Act. The CIT(A) at para 7.10 of the order held that the Appellant was unable to reconcile the difference in closing stock inspite various opportunities and confirmed the addition without considering the submission of the Appellant. Submission:- 25 Marie Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 14. The reasons for alleged excess stock

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)

3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. Id. CIT(A)/NFAC, has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in reopening the case of the assessee under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts

SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) was made in this case, provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. As in this case, more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

68 of the Act,supra.\n10. Thereafter, based on outcome of such enquiries and verification,\nnecessary additions, wherever required, may be made to the total\nincome of the assessee as per law by modifying the assessment order\nu/s 147/144B of the Act dated 15.04.2021. However, the AO is directed\nto ensure that reasonable opportunities of being heard are provided

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

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

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that

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

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

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

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

3,75,189/- Total: Rs. 4,81,562 22 M/S. DALAS BIOTECH LTD VS ACIT, ALWAR It is noticed that the ITAT sustained the decision of the CIT(A), Alwar, and approved the claim regarding the non-deduction of TDS on commission payment to foreign parties, in view of the CBDT circulars and provisions of section

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

68 (Rule 129) which also has been denied by AO since considered such disallowances as “MISREPORTING” enclosed copy of notice u/sec. 270AA dated 02/05/2024 of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Ajmer. (Page 3 to 4) Under similar circumstances; Hon’ble ITAT in Appeal No. 68/JODH/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 in case of Triupati Jewellers Jodhpur has held; Copy Enclosed. (Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. POOJA KEDIA, JAIPUIR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 68 towards unsecured loan\namount unjustified as identity and creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of\ntransaction duly proved by way of documentary evidences.\n12. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of Labh Chand\nBohra Vs ITO (2010) 189 TAXMAN 141 held as under.\n\"So far as capacity of the lender is concerned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

68 of the Act — S.NO. Party Name Amount 1 Aventez Media Technology 40,00,000.00 2 Tarana Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 10,00,000.00 3 Yamini Investments Company Ltd. 38,00,000.00 4 Premier Bars Pvt. Ltd. 1,25,00,000.00 5 Shreeji Developers 69,10,000.00 6 Ankur Taneja 41,80,000.00 7 Kanha Projects

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)

189 Taxman 141 (Raj) Sec. 68: Identity and genuineness of Cash Creditor proved- No need to prove the capacity of Cash Creditor – source of source not to be enquired. 1.3.v ACIT, Jaipur v M/S Rajasthan Asbestors Cement Co., Jaipur (ITA NO.940/JP/2008) “Now tribunal has upheld the decision of CIT(A) after holding that once the existence of the creditor

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

68 (Allahabad)/[2021] 438 ITR 657 (Allahabad)\n[10-02-2020) held that Where Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of\ncontract/subcontract income but failed to add interest income shown in books as\nother income, subsequently, on basis of audit objection, Assessing Officer was\njustified in invoking section 147/148 and reassessing 'interest income\nHon'ble Supreme Court

RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act. The AO has not done any independent enquiry about the gift that the shareholders has received. Even the gift deed was signed by Mrs. Joshi as Mr. Joshi is no more and the deeds were executed afterwards. In the light of these facts relying on the judgement of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl

RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act. The AO has not done any independent enquiry about the gift that the shareholders has received. Even the gift deed was signed by Mrs. Joshi as Mr. Joshi is no more and the deeds were executed afterwards. In the light of these facts relying on the judgement of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

3 , 6, 20 & 26. However, the perusal of the statement of Shri Nikhil Kr.Goyal reveals that in the entire statement, Shri Nikhil Kumar Goyal has no where alleged that he made any unaccounted purchases from the assessee. He also expressed his inability in furnishing the addresses of the persons appearing in the loose papers on the ground that these papers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

68, without any incriminating material found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee. As per settled position of law no addition can be made u/s 153A in the cases of unabated assessments, without any incriminating material having been found during the course of search. Therefore, the addition made by the ld. AO deserves to be deleted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

68, without any incriminating material found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee. As per settled position of law no addition can be made u/s 153A in the cases of unabated assessments, without any incriminating material having been found during the course of search. Therefore, the addition made by the ld. AO deserves to be deleted