SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

234B(1) "(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where, in any financial year, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or, where the advance tax paid by such assessee under the provisions of section 210 is less than ninety per cent

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 145(3) then only Fair Income may be estimated which should be based on past results if available, in this matter assesse has a long past history which are undisputable therefore in view of past history estimated profit should be calculated by applying a suitable Net Profit Ratio. Many landmark judgements are supporting this contention as follows

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

68", "Section 234A", "Section 234B", "Section 234C", "Section 139(1)", "Section 142(1)", "Section

PARSHWANATH BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

68 and section 69 family. If the addition is made under these sections, the tax has to be charged as per provisions of section 115BBE. The charging of tax as per provisions of section 115BBE is automatic. Hence, no separate show cause notice is required for charging tax u/s 115BBE. Therefore, the argument of the appellant

PARSHAVNATH ASSOCIATES, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

68 and section 69 family. If the addition is made under these sections, the tax has to be charged as per provisions of section 115BBE. The charging of tax as per provisions of section 115BBE is automatic. Hence, no separate show cause notice is required for charging tax u/s 115BBE. Therefore, the argument of the appellant

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other\nprovisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any\ncash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry\nto plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief

PRANATI BUILDCON, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT CEN CIR ,KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68, 69, 69A, and 70, additional income does not at all fall within the scope of any of them. Thus, again the authorities below have utterly failed to establish that Section 69C was applicable in this case. Consequently, Section 115BBE, a machinery provision, could not have been involved. 4.6 The observation at pg. 17 that no deduction

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

section 271(1)(c), which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 4.3 In ITA No. 1045/JPR/2024

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

section 271(1)(c), which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 4.3 In ITA No. 1045/JPR/2024

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 44AB.\nThe AO failed to point out any specific defects in the books of accounts that\nwould warrant rejection u/s 145(3). The rejection was mechanical and arbitrary\nwithout proper application of mind.\n2. The ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the arbitrary estimation\nof income at 8% of turnover and making addition

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 44AB. The AO failed to point out any specific defects in the books of accounts that would warrant rejection u/s 145(3). The rejection was mechanical and arbitrary without proper application of mind. 2. The ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the arbitrary estimation of income at 8% of turnover and making addition

SH. GAURANG AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

68-Whether SLP was to be dismissed against\nimpugned order of High Court Held, yes [Para 2]\" [In favour of revenue]\n(x) In the instant case, the abject failure of the appellant in discharging\nthe onus cast upon it by the legislature is evident. As such, I am\ninclined to accept the opinion of Ld. AO that the unexplained

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice

HIRALAL VIJAWAT , BHAWANIMANDI,BHAWANIMANDI vs. ACIT / DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA, KOTA

68 and section\r\n69 family. If the addition is made under these sections, the tax has to be charged\r\nas per provisions of section 115BBE. The charging of tax as per provisions of\r\nsection 115BBE is automatic. Hence, no separate show cause notice is required\r\nfor charging tax u/s 115BBE. Therefore, the argument

M/S ORTHOPAEDICS AND TRAUMA CENTER,JHALAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

25. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

Bench: the ld. CIT(A), assessment order dated 2-06-2021 was under challenge. Vide said assessment order, the AO computed total income of the assessee at 1,02,55,230/- by observing in the manner as:-

68,290/- offered during the survey proceedings are considered as unexplained investment, unexplained money and amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account as per provision of section 69, 69A and 69B of the I.T. Act respectively. Therefore, tax is charged on these offered income as per provision of section 115BBE

JAGAT SINGH RATHORE,TONK vs. ITO WD 7(2), , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

234B of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee vide his application dated 10th Aug. 2023 praying therein admission of additional evidences

MOHAN LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 69 is upheld. 6.7 Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is disposed on merits and based on Information/documents available on records. Ground 2 6.8 The appellant contested the Ld. AO charged interest Us 234B and 234C. In this regard, it is held that charge of interest is consequential in nature and being upheld according to the addition confirmed