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

68,120.00 Yemen 4. Reinhard Bosse UND Geschaftskunden Ag, 7,10,060.00 Bahnhofstrabe 17,49525 Lengerich, Germany 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

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 of the Act and the evidence so placed on record, we are of the considered view that the addition made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is without appreciating the provision of law prevailing and the evidence placed on record by the assessee. We get support of our view from the decision

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

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)

6) were also issued to M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd on 09.07.2013 & 05.10.2018 whose account was report as suspicious but the same were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remarks ‘ not known’ / ‘moved’. Thereafter, KYC of M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd was called for from the UCO Bank and it is noticed that the address given

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)

6. Since the appellant has not filed return in response of notice u/s 148of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, present appeal 13 SDC Construction, Jaipur. is not liable to be admitted. The appeal is infructuous and is therefore, dismissed. 7. The appeal is dismissed

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)

6) by the Assessing officer and they have submitted the necessary documentation in support of the investments so made by them in the assessee company. Basis the same, the Assessing Officer has given a finding that on verification of documents submitted by the assessee and called from the investor companies, it is found that the amount of investment agrees with

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

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68. [Russian Technology Center (P.) Ltd. 2013 Taxmann.com 400 (Delhi-Trib)] 2.8. Mere inadequacy of an enquiry or insufficiency of material on record can be a ground to invoke powers under Section 263. Under identical set of facts, 22 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur [2021] 214 TTJ (Chd.) 908, jurisdiction under Section

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

6,936/- 500-501 Pvt. Ltd. M/s ISIS Mercantile 2013-14 21,81,459/- 502-505 Pvt. Ltd M/s ISIS Mercantile 2014-15 Nil 509-510 Pvt. Ltd (Amalgamated with M/s Magnate Capital Market Pvt. Ltd.) Thus it is clear that both the share applicant companies are regularly assessed and assessment orders under section 143(3) were passed wherein