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

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

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)

234D which are consequential in nature. The interest charges are not sustainable once the additions are deleted. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or withdraw any all of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. “ ITA NO. 1115/JPR/2025 AY 2018-19 : “1. The ld. CIT (A) erred

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

234D which are consequential in nature. The\ninterest charges are not sustainable once the additions are deleted.\n5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or modify or withdraw any all of the\nabove grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.\nITA NO. 1115/JPR/2025

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

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 68, therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that it will be reasonable to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. We, thus, set aside the ex-parte order of the ld. CIT (A) and restore the matter back to the file

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 68, therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that it will be reasonable to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. We, thus, set aside the ex-parte order of the ld. CIT (A) and restore the matter back to the file

JAGDISH PRASAD DHAKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of cash credit in capital account to the income of the appellant on this count is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the addition. 3. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals-1), Jaipur has erred in law and facts in confirming

AKSHAT LOYALKA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-C-(101)(1), JAIPUR

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

234D of the Act. The levy interest being\ncharged, is contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.\n6. 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.”\nWe find that as per order sheet placed

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

234D of the Act. The interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 3 AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS (P) LTD VS ACIT, KOTA 2.1 It is noted that the ld. AR of the assessee vide letter dated 20-5-2023 has prayed for additional ground being ground no. 4.1 and 4.2 reads

RAGHUVEER METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,AJMER vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the ground no

234D of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, in dismissing the ground for initiation of penalty by AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and trading of TMT bars. It filed

RAGHUVEER METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,AJMER vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the ground no

234D of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, in dismissing the ground for initiation of penalty by AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and trading of TMT bars. It filed

SANTOSH KANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO 6(4 ) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

68 & 69C as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Charge interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D

RAJESH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing calculation of tax and interest chargeable, if any, is attached herewith forming part of this order. Charge interest u/s 234A/ 234B/234C and 234D, if any, a peer rules. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. Rajesh Kumar Khandealwal vs. ITO 7. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee

LAXMAN NAINANI,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

234D of the Act. The assesse totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is general in nature which does not require

DASHRATH KUMAR SHARMA, JPR ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 7(4), JPR, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 647/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Dashrath Kumar Sharma 73, Pancholiya Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur – 303 012 बनाम The ITO Vs. Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: EAJPS 0594A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri Hemang Gargieya, Advocate :

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act [ for short Act ]. 2. In the present appeal the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. The impugned order u/s 143(3) dated 26.12.2016 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed

DR. VIJAY PRAKASH KHICHAR,SIKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W(4) SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeisallowed for statistical purpose

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

68 on account of discrepancies noted in the books of account (i.e. alleged short MRI receipts of Rs. 3,63,026/-, CT Scan of Rs.88,264/-and unexplained entries of Rs. 3,63,202/- as per outdoor patient register and disallowance of expenses in absence of vouchers) treating the same as undisclosed income. The addition so made, being totally contrary

SHRI KAILASH CHAND GEHLOT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3) JAIPUR

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

section 148 is ab-initio void, illegal, invalid and contrary to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ITA NO. 471/JP/2018 : 1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the issue relating to initiation of proceeding u/s 148, which ought to have been first decided, before proceeding to decide the case on merits