NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1,20,12,101 on 08.11.2016\nas advances which resulted in increase in cash balance of the assessee. It is\nsubmitted that on the eve of sudden announcement of demonetization i.e.,\n08.11.2016, there was huge rush for buying of gold. The assessee took the\nsame as business opportunity and took advances for selling the gold bars. The\nassessee made

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)

195 ITD 244 (Raipur) (Trib.) A co-operative bank falls within the realm of the definition of "co-operative society" as contemplated in sec. 2(19) and therefore, dividend income received by the assessee from a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction u/s80P(2)(d). 4. So far as decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Totgars

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)

195 ITD 244 (Raipur) (Trib.) A co-operative bank falls within the realm of the definition of "co-operative society" as contemplated in sec. 2(19) and therefore, dividend income received by the assessee from a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction u/s80P(2)(d). 4. So far as decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Totgars

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)

195 ITD 244 (Raipur) (Trib.) A co-operative bank falls within the realm of the definition of "co-operative society" as contemplated in sec. 2(19) and therefore, dividend income received by the assessee from a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction u/s80P(2)(d). 4. So far as decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Totgars

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh

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

1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect\nand would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14.”\nFurther from the perusal of 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

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)

1. CIT V. Lovely Exports(P.) Ltd (2008)216 CTR 195(SC) 104 2. PCIT vs Esspal International(P.) Ltd (2024) 722 (Rajasthan) 105-109 3. Labh Chand Bohra vs. Income-tax Officer [2010] 189 Taxman 110-114 141 (Rajasthan) the hon'ble Rajasthan High Court 4. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders honble Gujarat High court 115- 5. ITO Vs Amar

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

68-73 (1), Chennai [2014] 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) 9 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-2 v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) 74-75 Ltd [2018] 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) 10 DR. A. V. Sreekumar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi [2018] 90 76-90 taxmann.com 355 (Kerala) 11 Principle Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gahoi Foods

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

68-73 (1), Chennai [2014] 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) 9 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-2 v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) 74-75 Ltd [2018] 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) 10 DR. A. V. Sreekumar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi [2018] 90 76-90 taxmann.com 355 (Kerala) 11 Principle Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gahoi Foods

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

68-73 (1), Chennai [2014] 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) 9 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-2 v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) 74-75 Ltd [2018] 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) 10 DR. A. V. Sreekumar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi [2018] 90 76-90 taxmann.com 355 (Kerala) 11 Principle Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gahoi Foods

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

68,120.00 4. Reinhard Bosse UND Geschaftskunden Ag, Bahnhofstrabe 17, 49525 Lengerich, Germany 7, 10,060.00 5. Shamlan Naseer Ali Doha, Qatar, YEMEN 1, 76,698.00 Total: 38, 92,787.00 The AO has disallowed the said amount U/s. 40(a) (i) on the ground that the assessee has not deducted the tax at source as required U/s. 195(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

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

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

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)

1,30,00,385/-which is chargeable to tax has escaped from assessment within the meaning of 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