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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

section 145(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessment order vide his order dated 14.11.2013 u/s 144 r.w.s.153A of Income Tax Act, 1961 assessing the total income of assessee Rs. 15,28,93,350/- as against returned income of Rs. 2,31,17,670/- by making the following additions/disallowances: - S. Particulars Amount No. (Rs.) 8 M/s. Jadau Jewellers

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

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

3) of the\nIncome Tax Act in contravention of the Instructions of the CBDT issued\nfor taking up cases under scrutiny, is a nullity.\n2.6 On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld CIT(A) erred in law in\nholding that defect in the Notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act stands\ncovered and remedied by Section

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

68 on account of unexplained cash credits, which was made in the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act without appreciating the facts and submissions made and documents submitted during the course of assessment proceedings, which is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5) That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

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

68 on account of unexplained cash credits, which was made in the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act without appreciating the facts and submissions made and documents submitted during the course of assessment proceedings, which is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5) That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

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

3)", "Section 147", "Section 68", "Section 234A", "Section 234B", "Section 234C", "Section 139(1)", "Section

YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

sections": ["143(3)", "153C", "68", "145(3)", "271(1)(c)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "271AAC(1)", "250", "143(2)", "142(1)"], "issues

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

S R AGRO TECH,BEHROR vs. ITO, WARD, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

234B and 234C 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that in this case the return declaring total income of Rs.(-)18,68,187/- for the assessment year 2017-18 had been filed by the assessee on 31-10-2017. The case of the assessee was selected under complete Scrutiny through CASS with remarks’’(i) cash deposit during the demonetization

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

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

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

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

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) completed earlier\nthen how it was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and\ntruly during assessment proceeding for initiating reassessment proceeding after expiry\nof 4 year from the end of relevant assessment year.”\nPrayer: In view of the above facts, circumstances the case and legal position\nthe notice as well

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

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 \nfu/k Zkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal \n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside \nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur \ncuke \nVs. \nACIT, \nCentral Circle-2, \nJaipur \nLFkk;h y s[kk la-@thvk Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \ni zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025 \nfu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year

234B & \n234C of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Rs.19,08,302/- and Rs.40,656/-which is \ncontrary to the provisions of law where the specific request was made by the \nassessee in the return filed u/s 139 of the Act.\n6. Under the facts and Circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has \nerred in not allowing benefit

BHAVUK SEHGAL,AJMER FUELS SHRINAGAR ROAD AJMER vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

68 as unexplained cash credits. 3. Assessee's ground on 234B is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. 4. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.34

VIDYA SAMITI ARYA SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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