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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. "Or the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on unexplained jewelry of Rs.25,34,587/- ignoring the fact that the assessee has not submitted any concrete evidence in support of jewelry found during search proceedings." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. "Or the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on unexplained jewelry of Rs.25,34,587/- ignoring the fact that the assessee has not submitted any concrete evidence in support of jewelry found during search proceedings." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. "Or the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on unexplained jewelry of Rs.25,34,587/- ignoring the fact that the assessee has not submitted any concrete evidence in support of jewelry found during search proceedings." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. "Or the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on unexplained jewelry of Rs.25,34,587/- ignoring the fact that the assessee has not submitted any concrete evidence in support of jewelry found during search proceedings." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case

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)

v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals with the information received during search and seizure operations under Section 132 requires fulfillment of pre- requisites conditions. noted hereinbefore, in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue (24) The concept

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)

v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals with the information received during search and seizure operations under Section 132 requires fulfillment of pre- requisites conditions. noted hereinbefore, in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue (24) The concept

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

47. On perusal of above provisions, It is clear that as per the existing provisions of the Act, donations made by a trust to any other trust or institution registered under section 12AA, except those made out of accumulated income, is considered as application of income for the purposes of its objects. Even where such donation is given

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68 has already been met with in the assessment proceeding and 36 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur the issue is raised is without considering the facts already on record submitted vide reply dated 26.12.2019 to the AO. The ld. PCIT in her SCN in point no. v and vi raised those issues which were

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

68 and Note: 11 - Page No. 61 respectively of the Annual Report for the F.Y. 2015-16) (ii) As stated above the liability for such expenses claimed was not accrued during the year under consideration. (iii) The expenses claimed by the assessee as per the above, being contingent liability, are expressly not allowable as per the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

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

68 and Note: 11 - Page No. 61 respectively of the Annual Report for the F.Y. 2015-16) (ii) As stated above the liability for such expenses claimed was not accrued during the year under consideration. (iii) The expenses claimed by the assessee as per the above, being contingent liability, are expressly not allowable as per the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

68 and Note: 11 - Page No. 61 respectively of the Annual Report for the F.Y. 2015-16) (ii) As stated above the liability for such expenses claimed was not accrued during the year under consideration. (iii) The expenses claimed by the assessee as per the above, being contingent liability, are expressly not allowable as per the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

68 and Note: 11 Page No. 61\nrespectively of the Annual Report for the F.Y. 2015-16)\n(ii) As stated above the liability for such expenses claimed was not accrued during the\nyear under consideration.\n(iii) The expenses claimed by the assessee as per the above, being contingent liability,\nare expressly not allowable as per the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

68 and Note: 11 Page No. 61\nrespectively of the Annual Report for the F.Y. 2015-16)\n(ii) As stated above the liability for such expenses claimed was not accrued during the\nyear under consideration.\n(iii) The expenses claimed by the assessee as per the above, being contingent liability,\nare expressly not allowable as per the provisions

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

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

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 u/s 143(2

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 by treating the exempt LTCG as alleged unexplained cash\ncredit. And also made the addition of Rs.5,76,262/- u/s 69C on account of alleged\nunexplained expenditure @ 6% for obtaining these alleged bogus LTCG.\n\n2.2\nIn first appeal before ld. CIT (A), assessee has filed detailed written\nsubmission and documents. However, the ld. CIT(A) has summarily rejected

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

68,81,546/- and shown long term capital gain of Rs.5,39,67,684/- and claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs.5,39,67,384/-. The AO noted that the sale of agricultural lands at Muhana, Sanganer have been made on 06/02/2013 and further agricultural lands purchased on 28/08/2014 at Mauja Shiekpur, Fatehabad. Thus, it was noted by the AO that

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. ASSESSING OFFICER 2.1. Ld. AO, for the sole reason of assessee not having complete details of cash sales, disbelieved the said cash sales. Ld. AO invoked the provisions of Section 68 and disbelieved the cash sales, amounting to Rs. 80,00,000, made by the assessee and added the same under the provisions of Section 68

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

47,86,000 at Jodhpur in HDFC Bank in the account of the assessee. 2. Assessing Officer 2.1. As mentioned above assessee's case was selected for scrutiny, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to him and the same were complied by the assesse. However, in the assessment order the learned AO without rejecting