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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details of such additional Income offered is as under: Sr. No. A. Y. Particulars of Additional Income Amount 1 2010-11 Agricultural Income 13,70,630 2 2011-12 Agricultural Income 13,85,650 3 2012-13 Agricultural Income 11,91,969 4 2014-15 Agricultural Income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details of such additional Income offered is as under: Sr. No. A. Y. Particulars of Additional Income Amount 1 2010-11 Agricultural Income 13,70,630 2 2011-12 Agricultural Income 13,85,650 3 2012-13 Agricultural Income 11,91,969 4 2014-15 Agricultural Income

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

201 to 218 on\nsecond floor of Arcade Building constructed on plot no. K-12, Malviya Marg,\nC-Scheme, Jaipur for an apparent consideration of Rs. 1,51,00,000/-. As\nagainst this apparent consideration of Rs. 1,51,00,000/-, the sub-registrar has\nvalued the property for purposes of Stamp Duty & Registration

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and were hence rejected by AO. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant stated that he is aged at nearly 64 years and was assessed to tax for last more than 40 years and since inception he was engaged in the business of Adatia of agriculture products mainly

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)

3), Kolkata that they are Directors in the various companies which is controlled & managed by Mr. Anjani Banka. Statement of Mr. Anjani Banka was also recorded by the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-2(3), Kolkata on 29.03.2014 wherein he accepted that he is engaged in providing accommodation entries in form of share capital, unsecured loan, LTCG etc and to facilitate

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 to 69D read with section 115BBE In reply to these queries of the ld. Pr.CIT, the assessee has filed detailed submission. From the record we found that during the course of the survey action u/s 133A of the Act on 19.02.2015, while recording statement u/s 133A, Mr. Rajesh Kularia Director of the company offered a sum of Rs.3.00

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68,75,687.25\n3.\nInterest on Term Loan\n1,42,38,661.07\n4.\nInterest paid to NBFC\n1,31,17,681.00\n5.\nInterest on LC and Hundies\n1,13,52,841.24\n6.\nBank Charges\n33,30,812.44\n7.\nInterest on delayed payments\n2,99,209.00\n8\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR

SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

3) was made in this case,\nprovisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are\napplicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under\nconsideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to\ntax has escaped assessment. As in this case, more than four years\nhave lapsed from the end of assessment year

ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(2), AJMER

201 ITR 406 held that\nIt is difficult to catalogue the various types of defects in the account books of an\nassessee which may render rejection of account books on the ground that the\naccounts are not complete or correct from which the correct profit cannot be\ndeduced\n3.14 In the instant case, the detailed explanations given

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

201, Sterling Apartment, B-6-B Ward 5 (1) Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAZPS 1109 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 3(35) of General Clause Act defines ‘month’ as a month reckoned according to British calendar. A month as per British calendar and a month reckoned as per British calendar are not same and cannot be used interchangeably as former refers to a calendar month by itself while latter refers to a period of time which qualifies

ACIT, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE vs. BALVIR SINGH TOMAR, ADARSH NAGAR

section 68 of the Act.\nLd. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer asked the\nassessee as to why higher cash balance was maintained as on 31.03.2016\nand that for an amount of Rs. 2,53,63,444/- the assessee had not given\nany justified reason.\nThe Id. AO noted that the merely because the assessee had declared\nhigher

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)

section 68 are fulfilled by the appellant and no addition can be made in its case. 5 DCIT vs. Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. However, the assessing officer did not found the submission made by the appellant acceptable. The AO has noted that the investors do not have any substantial business. There is either no profit or very meager profit

A AND J INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 68 of the Act.\nIn para 7.6, the Assessing Officer observed that the entry providers\nhad admitted in their statements to have received Supreme Group\ncommission @ 2% for providing accommodation entry.\nIn this regard, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.29,60,000/-\nto the total income of the assessee, as provided

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. A AND J INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED, JHOTWARA

section 68 of the Act.\nIn para 7.6, the Assessing Officer observed that the entry providers\nhad admitted in their statements to have received Supreme Group\ncommission @ 2% for providing accommodation entry.\nIn this regard, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.29,60,000/-\nto the total income of the assessee, as provided

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

201 ITD 781 (Delhi Trib.) [22-06-2023] as under:- "19. Before the Tribunal, the Id. counsel has merely reiterated its contentions placed before the lower authorities without showing any nexus between the interest earned and corresponding interest expenditure as observed. The Revenue on the other hand has clearly recorded a finding of fact that the interest expenditure

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68,56,040/- as against nil income shown in the return of income. At the time of making assessment, the Assessing Officer allowed deduction under section 80I of the Act on the total income after reducing there from brought forward losses. Deduction under section 80I of the Act was worked out at ` 90,87,694/-. 14 Om Infra

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

201 an amendment has also been made by the Finance Act. 2012 on the basis of decision of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT(Supra), wherein it has been provided that the assessee shall not be deemed to be default in respect of such tax if such person (i)has furnished his return of income