PRAKASH CHAND SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68, 69 or\n69A.\nIn view of the aforesaid facts, the Learned PCIT Central has erred in passing order u/s\n263. The same requires to be quashed.\n(V)\nOrder passed by the learned AO is not erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of\nthe revenue.\n15\nITA Nos. 477 to 479/JP/2024\nMukesh Kumar Saini vs. PCIT\nIt is further

LAXMI NARAYAN SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

68, 69 or\n69A.\nIn view of the aforesaid facts, the Learned PCIT Central has erred in passing order u/s\n263. The same requires to be quashed.\n(V)\nOrder passed by the learned AO is not erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of\nthe revenue.\n15\nITA Nos. 477 to 479/JP/2024\nMukesh Kumar Saini vs. PCIT\nIt is further

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

192/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.\nIn this regard, it is submitted that assessee company is regularly filling its\nreturn of income and maintains regular books of accounts, which are subject to\naudit by qualified chartered accountant. It is submitted that the alleged credit\nproceeds received from M/s Mamta Trading Company were on account of\nSale of goods

SHREENATH HERITAGE LIQUOR PVT. LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

section 68. In view of this it is submitted that the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer has erroneously confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 4. Favbourable case laws: - The assessee further places reliance on the following decisions of the wherein in similar circumstances share application money has been accepted as genuine and additions

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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

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

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

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 153A of the Act, every case where there was search or requisition, the AO is obliged to issue notice to such person furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year which the search conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance can made only on the basis

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

section 115BBE of the Act. 4.1. Finding of ld.AO: - The findings and observations of ld. AO are at page 2 to 23 of the assessment order. In view of the observations and findings the ld. AO alleged that the sales made, amount realized from debtors and advances received from customers, which was utilized to deposit in bank account

SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

192 shall, after paying the tax so deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time, prepare such statements for such period as may be prescribed and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income tax authority or the person authorised by such authority, such statements, in such form and verified in such manner

GIRDHARI LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

68 pre supposes a credit of the aforesaid amount in the books / bank account held for the previous year. This is the settled position of law that a statutory provision has to be strictly construed and interpreted as per its plain literal interpretation, and no word howsoever meaningful it may so appear can be allowed to be read into

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)

section 40(a)(i) of the Act on commission paid to non-resident commission agent on vague and irrelevant consideration. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1of the assessee wherein brief facts of the case

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

192 shall, after paying the tax so deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time, prepare such statements for such period as may be prescribed and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income tax authority or the person authorised by such authority, such statements, in such form and verified in such manner

SHANTI KUMAR SETHI AND SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Was Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Circle-01, Jaipur.

192 affords immunity to the declarant: nothing contained in any declaration made under section 183 shall be admissible in evidence against the declarant for the purpose of any proceeding relating to imposition of penalty... Therefore, the protection given, is to the declarant, and for a limited purpose. However, the High Court proceeded on the footing that such protection would

CREATIVE REALMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68 \"it was necessary for the assessee to prove\nprima facie the identity of creditors, the capacity of such creditors and\nlastly the genuineness of transactions\".\n8\nITA No. 599/JPR/2023\nCreative Realmart Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO\n9.4 Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd [1994]\n208 ITR 465 (Cal)], it was observed that

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