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)

221 DTR 1 where after distinguishing the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Hon’ble ITAT at Para 3 & 4 of the order held as under:- 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that assessee had remitted the employees, contribution

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

221 DTR 1 where after distinguishing the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Hon’ble ITAT at Para 3 & 4 of the order held as under:- 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that assessee had remitted the employees, contribution

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)

221 DTR 1 where after distinguishing the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Hon’ble ITAT at Para 3 & 4 of the order held as under:- 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that assessee had remitted the employees, contribution

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)

1,30,00,385/-which is chargeable to tax has escaped from assessment within the meaning of 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

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

221 Taxman 5/264 CTR 532(All.) (HC)\n-The Tribunal is not a competent authority to adjudicate upon the\njurisdiction of the AO when it is not raised before the Assessing Authonty\n(iii) Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO (High Court of Delhi) CWP No. 11844/2016\n(2018) 94 taxmann.com355(Delhi)\nWhether in terms of section 124(3)(b) assessee

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

221,917.81 10 DWS MF 100,000,000 1-Aug-11 100,000,000 5-Aug-11 72,866.48 4 98,630.14 11 IDFC MF 90,000,000 14-Jun-11 90,000,000 15-Jun-11 16,154.47 1

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

221,917.81 10 DWS MF 100,000,000 1-Aug-11 100,000,000 5-Aug-11 72,866.48 4 98,630.14 11 IDFC MF 90,000,000 14-Jun-11 90,000,000 15-Jun-11 16,154.47 1

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

221,917.81 10 DWS MF 100,000,000 1-Aug-11 100,000,000 5-Aug-11 72,866.48 4 98,630.14 11 IDFC MF 90,000,000 14-Jun-11 90,000,000 15-Jun-11 16,154.47 1

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

Section 271(1)(c), read with\nsection 68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income\nAssessing Officer found a sum of Rs.2,01,000/- in books of account of assessee\nAssessing Officer issued notice to assessee asking him to explain source of said\namount Assessee replied that he borrowed same from different creditors\nHowever, despite

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

1) dated 21/03/2022 (correct date is 21/02/2022) (PB Page 96-105), wherein detail of transaction executed by assessee company through broker M/s SMC Global Securities Limited were provided. 8. Sir, one fails to understand that how detail of transaction which in fact executed by assessee can held as supporting evidence for allegation without any material based on which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

221/- and levied the penalty of Rs. 42,21,625/- vide order dated 18/5/2018. 3. The assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the income surrendered by the assessee in the course of search and seizure action was already disclosed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

1 to 6 of the revenue’s appeal are regarding the addition made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained ITA Nos. 1096 to 1099, 1211, 1027 & 1028/JP/2018 & 6 CO 36, 37 & 50/JP/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s Oriental Power Cables Ltd. share application money from M/s Kaveri Hire Purchase and Deposits Pvt. Ltd. 5. The only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

1 to 6 of the revenue’s appeal are regarding the addition made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained ITA Nos. 1096 to 1099, 1211, 1027 & 1028/JP/2018 & 6 CO 36, 37 & 50/JP/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s Oriental Power Cables Ltd. share application money from M/s Kaveri Hire Purchase and Deposits Pvt. Ltd. 5. The only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

1 to 6 of the revenue’s appeal are regarding the addition made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained ITA Nos. 1096 to 1099, 1211, 1027 & 1028/JP/2018 & 6 CO 36, 37 & 50/JP/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s Oriental Power Cables Ltd. share application money from M/s Kaveri Hire Purchase and Deposits Pvt. Ltd. 5. The only

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

1 to 6 of the revenue’s appeal are regarding the addition made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained ITA Nos. 1096 to 1099, 1211, 1027 & 1028/JP/2018 & 6 CO 36, 37 & 50/JP/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s Oriental Power Cables Ltd. share application money from M/s Kaveri Hire Purchase and Deposits Pvt. Ltd. 5. The only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

1 to 6 of the revenue’s appeal are regarding the addition made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained ITA Nos. 1096 to 1099, 1211, 1027 & 1028/JP/2018 & 6 CO 36, 37 & 50/JP/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s Oriental Power Cables Ltd. share application money from M/s Kaveri Hire Purchase and Deposits Pvt. Ltd. 5. The only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

1 to 6 of the revenue’s appeal are regarding the addition made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained ITA Nos. 1096 to 1099, 1211, 1027 & 1028/JP/2018 & 6 CO 36, 37 & 50/JP/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s Oriental Power Cables Ltd. share application money from M/s Kaveri Hire Purchase and Deposits Pvt. Ltd. 5. The only

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

1 to 6 of the revenue’s appeal are regarding the addition made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained ITA Nos. 1096 to 1099, 1211, 1027 & 1028/JP/2018 & 6 CO 36, 37 & 50/JP/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s Oriental Power Cables Ltd. share application money from M/s Kaveri Hire Purchase and Deposits Pvt. Ltd. 5. The only