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

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

68. The court ruled that without\nconcrete evidence to establish the identities of the creditors, any addition\nto the income of the assessee based on unexplained cash credits is\n\n54\nITA Nos.480/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Karnani Solvex Private Ltd.\n\nunwarranted.\n\n10.5 Moreover, in the Supreme Court decision of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P)\nLtd

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

68 of the Act. The facts of the case as stated above are similar to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Kailash Jewellery House (ITA No.613/2010). In the facts of above case, a cash of Rs. 24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition

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)

2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 21.09.2018, which was duly served upon the assessee through speed post as well as e-mail. During e-assessment proceedings, Notices were issued under sec.142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 thereby calling the relevant details from time to time. In compliance with the notices issued assessee e-filed

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)

2 in Form No. 36 presented before Appellate Tribunal. 18. It may also be mentioned here that even though initially in the course of arguments, Learned counsel for the appellant touched the two additional grounds raised before Learned CIT(A), but faced with certain submissions put forth from the side Ld. DR for the department, learned counsel for the appellant

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

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

220\n19,29,791\n2016-17 (5,96,200) 264\n6,14,267\n2017-18 (2,10,000)\n2,10,000\n39,27,473\nCapital Gain in FY 2018-\n19\n15,39,545\nDeductions/s 54 (Property\nPurchased in 28 May 2018\nRs.38,20,000/-\n15,39,545\nNIL\nDRP\nLong Term Capital Gain\nNe\nD\nDRP.1. Ne\nariat.\n3.4 However

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

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

220/- है। " -से 2 इस पृ= पर, मेरे 8ारा िविभ" पाAटय" को उपल"ध करवाए गए तथा उनसे "ा0 &कए गए नगद का िहसाब है। जो &क &दनांक 01.12.2016 का है। इस पृ= पर िलखी detaills का अथ" िन?ानुसार है – बांयी ओर क* details का अथ" (i) 4500 UJ का अथ" है &क 4,50,000/- D नगद

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

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

220/- है। " -से 2 इस पृ= पर, मेरे 8ारा िविभ" पाAटय" को उपल"ध करवाए गए तथा उनसे "ा0 &कए गए नगद का िहसाब है। जो &क &दनांक 01.12.2016 का है। इस पृ= पर िलखी detaills का अथ" िन?ानुसार है – बांयी ओर क* details का अथ" (i) 4500 UJ का अथ" है &क 4,50,000/- D नगद

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

220/- which was processed U/s 143(1) of the IT Act and in terms of intimation issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 1,21,09,240/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure