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

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

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

68 of the Act. The\ncalculation approach adopted by the learned AO is also found to be\ncorrect.\nFurther alternatively and without prejudice, the unexplained cash\nreceived by the appellant is also the unexplained money with the\nappellant which is taxable under section 69A of the Act. It is held\naccordingly.\nIn view of the above discussion this ground

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

Section 68, the first condition is that the amount must be credited in the books of accounts, Ld. AO has nowhere mentioned that he found any sum credited in appellant's books of accounts. Further, as stated above, Alok Kumar Jain vs. ACIT/DCIT the Appellant already submitted the sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the exemption claimed

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

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

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

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

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

TURAB ALI BOHRA,BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

234C. The levy interest being\ncharged, is contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.\n7. The appellant prays your honor indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of\nthe grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.\"\n3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

NAHTA TRADING CO.,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

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)

234C. The levy interest being charged, is contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 4. the appellant prays your honor indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

M/S BALAJI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

234C,. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.” 3. Briefly the facts of the care are that the assessee engaged in the business of Real Estate and construction of flats filed its return of income

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

68 without jurisdiction and per-sea illegal because this section can be invoke where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for the any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation. 6. Explanation & Evidence not Appreciated :- That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred

SHIV EDIBLES LTD,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 , KOTA

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 147 as was issued after lapse of 4 years from AY 2011-12. Hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as in facts of the case in passing the impugned order ex-parte, in a haste without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The impugned order

SHIV EDIBLES LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA, KOTA

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 147 as was issued after lapse of 4 years from AY 2011-12. Hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as in facts of the case in passing the impugned order ex-parte, in a haste without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The impugned order