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

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

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

4\nLd.CIT (A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action\nof AO in making addition of Rs.37,47,000/-, being the amount pertaining to gifts\nreceived on the occasion of marriage of assessee, u/s 68 of the act. The addition\nso made is contrary to the law and facts, unjustified, illegal

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

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

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

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

245D(4) dated 16.05.2019. 8.2 Thus considering the factual and legal position especially the settlement petition filed by MBDL and order of the settlement commission, I am of the view that the 'on money' received in the JME project belongs to MBDL only. MBDL has offered the same before the settlement commission and the same has been accepted

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

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

245D(4) dated 16.05.2019. 8.2 Thus considering the factual and legal position especially the settlement petition filed by MBDL and order of the settlement commission, I am of the view that the 'on money' received in the JME project belongs to MBDL only. MBDL has offered the same before the settlement commission and the same has been accepted

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

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

245D(4) dated 16.05.2019. 8.2 Thus considering the factual and legal position especially the settlement petition filed by MBDL and order of the settlement commission, I am of the view that the 'on money' received in the JME project belongs to MBDL only. MBDL has offered the same before the settlement commission and the same has been accepted

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

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.

4. Ld.CIT (A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in making addition of Rs.41,100/- u/s 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

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

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

245D (4) and each and every transactions given in ledger accounts by Ld. A.O. on page 9 – 15 of assessment order has been considered as of Manglam group and covered in determining undisclosed income of Manglam group and therefore those ledger accounts cannot be held as pertaining to or related to assessee herein. 17. It was further submitted that

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

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

245D (4) and which has been rightly appreciated and considered by the ld CIT(A) as each and every transactions given in ledger accounts by Ld. A.O. has been considered as of Manglam group DCIT vs. Shri Mohan Sukhani and covered in determining undisclosed income of Manglam group and therefore these entries/transactions cannot again be brought to tax in hands

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

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

245D (4) and each and every transactions given in ledger accounts by Ld. A.O. on page 9 – 15 of assessment order has been considered as of Manglam group and covered in determining undisclosed income of Manglam group and therefore those ledger accounts cannot be held as pertaining to or related to assessee herein. 17. It was further submitted that

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

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

245D (4) and each and every transactions given in ledger accounts by Ld. A.O. on page 9 – 15 of assessment order has been considered as of Manglam group and covered in determining undisclosed income of Manglam group and therefore those ledger accounts cannot be held as pertaining to or related to assessee herein. 17. It was further submitted that

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

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

245D (4) and which has been rightly appreciated and considered by the ld CIT(A) as each and every transactions given in ledger accounts by Ld. A.O. has been considered as of Manglam group DCIT vs. Shri Mohan Sukhani and covered in determining undisclosed income of Manglam group and therefore these entries/transactions cannot again be brought to tax in hands