KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

section 68, it is evident that assessing officer can make\naddition u/s 68 only under two circumstances, i.e.:\nor\n(i)\n(ii)\nAppellant does not offer any explanation about nature and source of such credit\nExplanation offered by Appellant is not upto the satisfaction of Ld. AO.\nIn other words, whenever Appellant provides explanation, before rejecting the\nsame

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

section 195 of the income tax act. The learned Commissioner of income tax appeals has relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in 343 ITR 366 wherein it has been held that when a non-resident agent operates outside the country no part of his income arises in India and since payment is remitted directly abroad

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68, it is evident that assessing officer can make addition u/s 68 only under two circumstances, i.e.: (i) Appellant does not offer any explanation about nature and source of such credit or (ii) Explanation offered by Appellant is not upto the satisfaction of Ld. AO. In other words, whenever Appellant provides explanation, before rejecting the same

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

195 1298-1493 27 58-64 Exhibit 10 Page 1 PB Volume II Part II 2017-18 Sales Rs.2,35,50,916 to 36 587-725 2016-17 Sales Rs.28,200 2015-16 Sales Rs.2,68,920 28 64 Exhibit 11 Page 15 PB Volume I Part I 2016-17 Sales Rs.1

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

195 1298-1493 27 58-64 Exhibit 10 Page 1 PB Volume II Part II 2017-18 Sales Rs.2,35,50,916 to 36 587-725 2016-17 Sales Rs.28,200 2015-16 Sales Rs.2,68,920 28 64 Exhibit 11 Page 15 PB Volume I Part I 2016-17 Sales Rs.1

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

195 1298-1493 27 58-64 Exhibit 10 Page 1 PB Volume II Part II 2017-18 Sales Rs.2,35,50,916 to 36 587-725 2016-17 Sales Rs.28,200 2015-16 Sales Rs.2,68,920 28 64 Exhibit 11 Page 15 PB Volume I Part I 2016-17 Sales Rs.1

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

195 1298-1493 27 58-64 Exhibit 10 Page 1 PB Volume II Part II 2017-18 Sales Rs.2,35,50,916 to 36 587-725 2016-17 Sales Rs.28,200 2015-16 Sales Rs.2,68,920 28 64 Exhibit 11 Page 15 PB Volume I Part I 2016-17 Sales Rs.1

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

195 1298-1493 27 58-64 Exhibit 10 Page 1 PB Volume II Part II 2017-18 Sales Rs.2,35,50,916 to 36 587-725 2016-17 Sales Rs.28,200 2015-16 Sales Rs.2,68,920 28 64 Exhibit 11 Page 15 PB Volume I Part I 2016-17 Sales Rs.1

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

195 1298-1493 27 58-64 Exhibit 10 Page 1 PB Volume II Part II 2017-18 Sales Rs.2,35,50,916 to 36 587-725 2016-17 Sales Rs.28,200 2015-16 Sales Rs.2,68,920 28 64 Exhibit 11 Page 15 PB Volume I Part I 2016-17 Sales Rs.1

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)

section 132 of the income tax act, 1961 in case of M/s Skyway infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Hi-Tech Engineers, M/s RPS infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon Realty Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon infra projects Ltd and Shri Deepak Jain on 10.11.2019, Lateron Mr Deepak Jain retracted from the statement on 27.09.2021. The Ld. AO did not verify

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

68 of the I.T. Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013, AO ought to have enquired 10 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur about the source of the amounts so credited / invested along with documentary evidence, which AO failed to do. 5. In the year under reference there is large

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

68 of the I.T. Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013, AO ought to have enquired 10 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur about the source of the amounts so credited / invested along with documentary evidence, which AO failed to do. 5. In the year under reference there is large

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 68. (9) DCIT Circle 3(1)(I) vs. Orient News Prints Ltd (2018) 259 Taxman 408 (SC) Where in order to prove the genuineness of share transactions, assessee brought on record all relevant facts, such as, names, address, PAN of share applicants, it was thereupon the duty of the AO to obtain separate confirmation from concerned parties

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68 of the Act is not retrospective but prospective in nature. Therefore, considering the plethora of evidence placed on record and considering the decision of the apex court in the case of Lovely Export the addition has been rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee clearly and categorically established the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the all this

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

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

68 of the Act. 5.3.4 In support of the above proposition, the appellant has relied upon, among others, the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Krishna Devi [2022] 138 Taxmann.com 150 (SC) in which the SLP filed against the order of High Court by the Revenue was rejected, CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Aggrawal

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

195, hence the order passed under\nSection 263 deserves to be set aside on this issue.\n3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur\nvide order dated 20/03/2024 passed under Section 263 of the LT. Act,\nerred in remanding the ground of revision to the Assessing Officer\npassed by the Id. Assessing Officer on the issue relating