MAHESH KUMAR LADIWALA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. ANITA LADIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed Under Section 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short Act ] By Dcit, Central Circle-01, Jaipur.

68 in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. The entries were pertaining to firm and already accepted by M/s Ramesh Mahesh & Co. before ITSC as well as by the department in report u/s 245D(3). The addition in the hands of the assessee is unjustified, unreasonable and excessive and kindly be deleted in full. 5. Ld.CIT (A) erred

ROHIT LADIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

3. We have gone through the orders of the AO, the learned CIT(A), and the\nlearned Tribunal. What we find is, that the AO has assumed doubts against the\ndonor, merely on the basis of his having deposited certain amounts in his\naccounts, soon before making of the gifts, and that the assessee had withdrawn\nthe amounts deposited

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

245D(6). Accordingly, the application in both cases, are hereby rejected.” As a result, the proceedings were abated to the assessing officer. 6. The ld. AO has completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(b)(1) r.w.s. 245A of the Act at Rs. 11,03,13,509/- as against the returned income of the assessee

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

245D(1) dated 08-05-2017. M/s RT Industries\nhad filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against this order.\n(ii) It is clarified that the above exhibits contain the entries related to M/s Rajesh\nProducts also, apart from those related to M/s RT Industries. For instance, the\nfollowing page nos. of exhibits mention

HEMA KANWAR NARENDRA SINGH RATHOD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

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

68 of the IT Act on account of undisclosed income earned through bogus long term capital gain and Rs. 1,74,318/- under section 69C of the Act on account of Smt. Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod, Jaipur. commission paid on the aforesaid bogus long term capital gain taxed at the rate of 30% as per provisions of section

HEMA KANWAR NARENDRA SINGH RATHOD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

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

68 of the IT Act on account of undisclosed income earned through bogus long term capital gain and Rs. 1,74,318/- under section 69C of the Act on account of Smt. Hema Kanwar Narendra Singh Rathod, Jaipur. commission paid on the aforesaid bogus long term capital gain taxed at the rate of 30% as per provisions of section

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly\nallowed

68 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 on account of alleged undisclosed brokerage received.\n3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has\nerred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in applying\nthe section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is not applicable\nin the case of the assessee

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

68 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 on account of alleged undisclosed brokerage received.\n3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has\nerred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in applying\nthe section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is not applicable\nin the case of the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has received "on money" on the JEM project ITA Nos. 1299, 1300 & 1301/JP/2019 7 DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur Vs. Late Smt. Pushpa Goyal, Jaipur during the year under consideration and has not disclosed this amount

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has received "on money" on the JEM project ITA Nos. 1299, 1300 & 1301/JP/2019 7 DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur Vs. Late Smt. Pushpa Goyal, Jaipur during the year under consideration and has not disclosed this amount

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has received "on money" on the JEM project ITA Nos. 1299, 1300 & 1301/JP/2019 7 DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur Vs. Late Smt. Pushpa Goyal, Jaipur during the year under consideration and has not disclosed this amount

BHAGWAN SAHAI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 by holding the deposits made by assessee in his bank account as his undisclosed income without any basis. Thus, the addition of Rs. 22,50,161/- so sustained by the ld. CIT (A) deserves to be deleted. 3 Shri Bhagwan Sahai, Jaipur. 4.1. That, the ld. CIT (A) has further erred in ignoring the evidences and explanations furnished

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SUMS EXIM PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result , ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

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

245D(4) of the Act as void because it has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation of facts on the part of Sh Sanjay Jain & his entities. In view of these facts, AO is hereby directed under section 150(1) of the Act to re-open the case of Sh Sanjay Jain, M/s Shrey's India

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAM GOPAL SARRAF, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 132 (4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 whereby the Act itself allows the creation of a legal fiction by making certain presumptions. 8.3 When a presumption is being made, it is being presumed that the name "RGS" denotes no one else but the assessee under consideration and that the entries of unaccounted capital, surplus, cash loans and interest

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAM GOPAL SARRAF, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 132 (4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 whereby the Act itself allows the creation of a legal fiction by making certain presumptions. 8.3 When a presumption is being made, it is being presumed that the name "RGS" denotes no one else but the assessee under consideration and that the entries of unaccounted capital, surplus, cash loans and interest

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCL-1,, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MOHAN SUKHANI, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 132 (4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 whereby the Act itself allows the creation of a legal fiction by making certain presumptions. 9.3 When a presumption is being made, it is being presumed that the name "Mohan Sukhani" denotes no one else but the assessee under consideration and that the entries of unaccounted capital, surplus, cash loans

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAM GOPAL SARRAF, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 132 (4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 whereby the Act itself allows the creation of a legal fiction by making certain presumptions. 8.3 When a presumption is being made, it is being presumed that the name "RGS" denotes no one else but the assessee under consideration and that the entries of unaccounted capital, surplus, cash loans and interest

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCL-1,, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MOHAN SUKHANI, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 132 (4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 whereby the Act itself allows the creation of a legal fiction by making certain presumptions. 9.3 When a presumption is being made, it is being presumed that the name "Mohan Sukhani" denotes no one else but the assessee under consideration and that the entries of unaccounted capital, surplus, cash loans

SHRI RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

245D of the Act as well as the order of the Settlement Commission wherein the so called retraction and denial of the assessee was rejected having any evidentiary value. The ld. D/R has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ravi Mathur in DB IT Appeal No. 67 of 2002 dated