ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

15,384.00 2008-09 12,44,29,983.15 9,87,57,585.00 2009-10 6,36,87,969.81 1,89,47,976.00 Sub Total 50,76,20,693.36 60,18,98,460.00 2010-11 8,37,24,064.55 27,48,064.00 2011-12 8,60,16,075.33 8,75,24,252.00 Total

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

68 of I.Tax Act and taxing the same in higher bracket of tax by applying provisions of section 115BBE. a.1 Finding of AO (Page 2-4 of Astt Order) 20 Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT The ld AO noticed that the assessee company has deposited Rs. 2,79,00,000/- in its various bank

SHRI GOVIND NARAIN JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any cogent reason and hence needs to deleted. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance made by the ld. AO of Rs. 18,62,147/- out of interest and bank charges without considering the submissions made and evidences adduced

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

68 of the Act of Rs. 10,53,700/- lacs were made on account of the fact that the amount of Rs. 10,53,700/- lacs were deposited in the bank account and the assessee had filed to explain the source of cash deposits. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before

SHREE RAJPUT SABHA,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 2(15) – Not a ground\nspecified in statute for cancellation of registration Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 2(15),\nfirst proviso, 12AA(3)\nCIT vs Jodhpur Development Authority 287 CTR 473 (Raj.)/ 139 DTR 1\nCharitable trust Registration under s. 12A - Charitable purpose of planning and\ndevelopment of city vis-a-vis earning of profit - Predominant object

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

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2: Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2: Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, section 65. section 69A, section 698, section 690 or section 690 to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub section (1) of section 11588E has been

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the act. The appellant in this regard has relied upon various case laws wherein such view is adopted. Since there is no contrary judgment and based on simple interpretation of s. 68, I hold that addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000 is not warranted u/s 68 and hence same is deleted. 9. Even looking otherwise

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the act. The appellant in this regard has relied upon various case laws wherein such view is adopted. Since there is no contrary judgment and based on simple interpretation of s. 68, I hold that addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000 is not warranted u/s 68 and hence same is deleted. 9. Even looking otherwise

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the act. The appellant in this regard has relied upon various case laws wherein such view is adopted. Since there is no contrary judgment and based on simple interpretation of s. 68, I hold that addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000 is not warranted u/s 68 and hence same is deleted. 9. Even looking otherwise

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the act. The appellant in this regard has relied upon various case laws wherein such view is adopted. Since there is no contrary judgment and based on simple interpretation of s. 68, I hold that addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000 is not warranted u/s 68 and hence same is deleted. 9. Even looking otherwise

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to that A.Y. 2013-14. It is pertinent to note that the ld. CIT(A) had issued the show cause notice to the assessee to tax the share capital under section 68

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to that A.Y. 2013-14. It is pertinent to note that the ld. CIT(A) had issued the show cause notice to the assessee to tax the share capital under section 68

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68. Accordingly, ld. AO appropriately did not transgress his jurisdiction. His action was well in accordance with the law. 4. The assessment was completed on the basis of exhaustive enquiries made by ld. AO and detailed submissions along with relevant documents placed on record by the assessee Company. Thus, no error can be attributed to such an order passed

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act.” 4 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in business of Real estate. The assessee e-filed its return of income on 22.10.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 15,62,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. A notice

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2,90,93,500/- made by the AO by applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, it is noted that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of 15