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)

244A of the Act made by the AO. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 4. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Brief Facts of the Case are that

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

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

Section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath,\nso statement recorded during Survey u/s 133A has no evidentiary value and any\nadmission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition. Reliance\nplaced CIT v. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) (HC). Affirmed by Apex\nCourt in, CIT v. S. Khader

ELCON DRUGS & FORMULATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 68 to the extent of Rs. 4,61,000/-. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of Rs. 4,61,000/-. 5. The assessee company craves its right to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC-TDS/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,970/- on 16.02.2021 to M/s Everfoods Asia Pvt. Ltd. on which TDS of Rs. 1,66,27,770/- was deducted but deposited on 01.07.2021. Accordingly, assessee paid interest @ 1.5% P.M. for delay of 5monghts in deposition of TDS of Rs. 12,47,085/- (1,66,27,770*1.5%*5). 2.2 In course of assessment proceedings

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 & 244A

SUDHIR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the materials facts in respect of computation of income.’’ Regarding issuance of notice, the ld.AR of the assessee vide letter dated 25-06-2014 submitted the reply before the AO. However, the AO was not convinced