GOLECHAS JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n10/04/2024

68 of\nthe Income Tax Act as AO didn't rejected the books of accounts nor\nbrought anything contrary on records to show that cash sales is not the\nsource for cash deposits. Keeping the above judgement in view, the same\nshould be held for the case under dispute.\nIt is also noted that the ld. AR of the assessee

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

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

234 ITR 571 (Bombay)/[1999] 154 CTR 365 (Bombay) Case Law paper Book page 232-237 Section 68 of the Income

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to interfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority." The onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the interest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively only for the purpose of making investments which

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: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR 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)

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

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

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

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

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

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)

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,57,133/-. Penalty u/s 270A, u/s 271AAC. u/s 270A(9)(c), initiated\nseparately for misreporting/under reporting the facts as discussed above. Penalty\nu/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance of statutory notices. Penalty initiation for\nviolation of section 269SS & 269T of the IT Act. Levied tax and charged interest\nu/s 234

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively\nonly for the purpose of making investments which

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively\nonly for the purpose of making investments which

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

68 r.w.s 115 BBE of the Act. Therefore, the\nallegation and finding of the Ld. CIT is factually incorrect that the FAO\nhas charged the tax at normal rates only. The AO has invoked the\nSection 115BBE of the Act but committed a clerical error in not\ncomputing the special tax in accordance therewith. At the best it could

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

234 (Kerala) a under: "Section 153A, read with section 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (Scope of) - Assessment years 2002 03 to 2006-07 - Whether where there was a disclosure made by giving a statement during course of search, Assessing Officer, by virtue of power conferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 shall not apply. Therefore the addition made by the learned AO for sum of Rs.35,83,000/- is deleted. 4 DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 1.6). The learned AO carried out another addition on account of agriculture Income of Rs. 17,54,390/- the same is adjudicated as under: 1.7). The learned AO raised questions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 13 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922] - Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts - On assessee's inability to supply addresses of purchasers who purchased goods on cash, ITO rejected assessee's books of account showing result in respect of cash sale transactions, and made addition

DEEPAK JAIN,C-SCHEME vs. ITO WARD 2(1), BHAGWAN DAS ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

234, under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal

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

section 153A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [ for short “Act” ] by ACIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur [ for short “AO” ].\n\n2. Revenue has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the following\ngrounds ;\n\n1. Ground (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the\nld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIDHUSHI KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

234 (Kerala)/[2016] 240 Taxman 168 (Kerala)/[2016] 385 ITR 624 (Kerala) [2016] 287 CTGR 187 (Kerala)[22-03-2016], what can be considered as incriminating material was discussed as under :-\n66\n18. On going through Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, what we find is that if the authority specified therein has reason to believe that