SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. While making the addition ld. AO relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 32 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-VI Vs. T. S. Kishan & Co. Ltd., [2014] 50 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi). This decision deals with the share capital credit

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

253. The limitation for the cases falling under this category, is two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which the action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, were completed ; or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the appellate authority was received

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

4. That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities grossly erred in making an addition under section 68 of the Act on account of sundry creditors of Rs. 2,23,24,871/- by treating the same as unexplained cash credits. SHRI UPENDRAF KUMAR SONI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

4. That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities grossly erred in making an addition under section 68 of the Act on account of sundry creditors of Rs. 2,23,24,871/- by treating the same as unexplained cash credits. SHRI UPENDRAF KUMAR SONI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

4 of table below) and then ld CIT(A) determined the gross profit on these sales(as per column 5 of table below) which was held to be added to the income of the assessee: A.Y. 2015-16: Exhibit No. Amount of Remarks Undisclosed Sales Addition sustained by addition (Rs.) confirmed by ld. ld.CIT(A) by applying

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

4 of table below) and then ld CIT(A) determined the gross profit on these sales(as per column 5 of table below) which was held to be added to the income of the assessee: A.Y. 2015-16: Exhibit No. Amount of Remarks Undisclosed Sales Addition sustained by addition (Rs.) confirmed by ld. ld.CIT(A) by applying

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

4 of table below) and then ld CIT(A) determined the gross profit on these sales(as per column 5 of table below) which was held to be added to the income of the assessee: A.Y. 2015-16: Exhibit No. Amount of Remarks Undisclosed Sales Addition sustained by addition (Rs.) confirmed by ld. ld.CIT(A) by applying

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

4 of table below) and then ld CIT(A) determined the gross profit on these sales(as per column 5 of table below) which was held to be added to the income of the assessee: A.Y. 2015-16: Exhibit No. Amount of Remarks Undisclosed Sales Addition sustained by addition (Rs.) confirmed by ld. ld.CIT(A) by applying

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

4 of table below) and then ld CIT(A) determined the gross profit on these sales(as per column 5 of table below) which was held to be added to the income of the assessee: A.Y. 2015-16: Exhibit No. Amount of Remarks Undisclosed Sales Addition sustained by addition (Rs.) confirmed by ld. ld.CIT(A) by applying

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

4 of table below) and then ld CIT(A) determined the gross profit on these sales(as per column 5 of table below) which was held to be added to the income of the assessee: A.Y. 2015-16: Exhibit No. Amount of Remarks Undisclosed Sales Addition sustained by addition (Rs.) confirmed by ld. ld.CIT(A) by applying

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

253, read with section 153C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 - Appellate Tribunal - Appealable orders (Aggrieved person) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether rule 27 embodies a fundamental principal that a respondent who may not have been aggrieved by final order of lower authority or court, and therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 of the IT Act of Rs. 12,74,04,995/- along with disallowance of commission payment and freight payment total amounting to Rs. 12,83,51,717/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) both on merits of the addition as well as validity of reopening of the assessment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak