INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

section 68 of the Act and specifically\nreferring the first proviso reads as under:\n\"The person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also\noffers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited.\"\nIn view of the above, the proviso specifically, made the person accountable and\nincluded

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

section 68 of the Act and specifically\nreferring the first proviso reads as under:\n\"The person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also\noffers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited.\"\nIn view of the above, the proviso specifically, made the person accountable and\nincluded

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

220-221 Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] – Income – Chargeable as – Assessment year 1947-48 – Assessee encashed 28 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each after issuance of High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946 – When asked to explain source of said notes, assessee

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,SIKANDARA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

220/-. 6. On culmination of the assessment proceedings, ld. PCIT called for assessment records for examination as per provisions of section 263 of the Act. On verification of the assessment records, it was found that the income offered by the assessee / added in the assessment proceeding representing unaccounted construction expense, excess stock and surrendered of unaccounted receipt were

PRAKASH CHAND SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)JAIPUR, JAIPUR

220/-.\n6.\nOn culmination of the assessment proceedings, Id. PCIT called for\nassessment records for examination as per provisions of section 263 of the\nAct. On verification of the assessment records, it was found that the income\noffered by the assessee / added in the assessment proceeding\nrepresenting unaccounted construction expense, excess stock and\nsurrendered of unaccounted receipt were

LAXMI NARAYAN SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

220/-.\n6.\nOn culmination of the assessment proceedings, Id. PCIT called for\nassessment records for examination as per provisions of section 263 of the\nAct. On verification of the assessment records, it was found that the income\noffered by the assessee / added in the assessment proceeding\nrepresenting unaccounted construction expense, excess stock and\nsurrendered of unaccounted receipt were

DINESH KUMAR SONI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings on the issue:- “However in case the subject matter of addition is not expressly falling under

VINOD GUPTA,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHUNJHUNU

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act are not attracted to the amounts representing purchases made on credit.  Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Jagdish Prasad Tewari (220

BABUDEEN AND PARTY,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

220(2) of Act was rejected by the AO ignoring the fact that the fresh assessment on the set-aside and restored proceedings as not fresh assessment proceedings. I find that against returned income of Rs.6,87,900, assessment was completed under section 143(3) át taxable income of Rs.3,79,39,455 (including addition of Rs.68

SHRI NARESH JHANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is partly

68 of the Act. ii) Assessee having declared the income from commission on money transfer under PMGKY for which certificate u/s 199C of the Finance Act, 2016 having been issued, the addition of the amount involved in money transfer is unjustified iii) The AO having accepted at page 14 to 25 of the assessment order that the amount involved

SHRI NARESH JHANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is partly

68 of the Act. ii) Assessee having declared the income from commission on money transfer under PMGKY for which certificate u/s 199C of the Finance Act, 2016 having been issued, the addition of the amount involved in money transfer is unjustified iii) The AO having accepted at page 14 to 25 of the assessment order that the amount involved

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

220 CTR (Raj) 622 followed." 11.4 In case of Rajmal Kanwar v. CIT-I [2017] 82 taxmann.com 119 (Jalpur - Trib.) it was held that orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2011-12- Where AO had made sufficient enquiries, considered survey records and surrender made by assessee and after considering submissions of assessee completed assessment proceedings under section

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

220 CTR (Raj) 622 followed." 11.4 In case of Rajmal Kanwar v. CIT-I [2017] 82 taxmann.com 119 (Jalpur - Trib.) it was held that orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2011-12- Where AO had made sufficient enquiries, considered survey records and surrender made by assessee and after considering submissions of assessee completed assessment proceedings under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR NOWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

220-221 Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] – Income – Chargeable as – Assessment year 1947-48 – Assessee encashed 28 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each after issuance of High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946 – When asked to explain source of said notes, assessee

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)

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 it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad) [30-05-2013] that (headnote extract) In course of assessment, Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not maintained proper books of account He thus rejected book results and estimated net profit rate of 8 per cent under section 44AD Assessing Officer also made certain addition under section 68

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad) [30-05-2013] that (headnote extract) In course of assessment, Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not maintained proper books of account He thus rejected book results and estimated net profit rate of 8 per cent under section 44AD Assessing Officer also made certain addition under section 68

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad) [30-05-2013] that (headnote extract) In course of assessment, Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not maintained proper books of account He thus rejected book results and estimated net profit rate of 8 per cent under section 44AD Assessing Officer also made certain addition under section 68