M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

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

section 272A(2)(k) was confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has contended as under :- (a) Delay in filing e-TDS statement in Form No. 24Q and 26Q was on account of the facts that CPC computer systems generate number for M/s. World Trade Park Ltd., Jaipur. acknowledging the receipt

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

e-filing portal. The assessee is\nengaged in the wholesale and retail business in the name of M/s Kanhiya\nLal Prakash Chand.\nAs the assessee during the demonization period deposited cash of\nRs.67,11,000/- into bank accounts and has not submitted his Income tax\nreturn within due date as per the provision of the Act, a survey action

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

e- proceeding module. ld. AO did not accept the reply, due to the following reasons: “(i) It is clear that section 115BBE was originally introduced by finance Act in 2012 w.e.f 01.04.2013 and applicable for A.Y 2013-14 and onwards. The main object of introduction of this section was to curve the practice of laundering of unaccounted money

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRATEEK KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

e) ITO vs. Shree Ladani Family Trust 21 Tax World 351 Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench has held that burden to prove Benami nature heavily lies on the department. f) DCIT vs. PSM Family Trust 21 Tax World 553 15 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Vs Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur To hold benami Character of a business

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)

272A(1)(d), which are not sustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. We find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days each. The assessee

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

272A(1)(d), which are not\nsustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above\ngrounds of appeal at the time of hearing.\"\n3.\nWe find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days\neach. The assessee

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

e) Undisclosed income or undisclosed investment cannot be explained through another unexplained income or unexplained source. That tantamounts to mere creation of an artificial layer. Verifiable cash sources trail should be behind the undisclosed cash advances detected otherwise such cash advances is to be treated as unexplained. (f) Deemed income under sections 68/69/69A etc. is separate from any 'head

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

e-filed by the assessee on 30/09/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 1,96,910/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer has passed assessment order U/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) and ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 2 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO assessed total income of the assessee

SHRI SOHAN NATH,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68,944/-. The penalty so imposed by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be deleted in full. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any other grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 2

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

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

272A(1)(d) of the Act. In the Form No. 35 of that appeal, the appellant has clearly stated she is a 11 Anshu Sharma vs. ITO housewife and not carrying out any business. Therefore, the maintenance of books is not applicable to the facts of the appellant case and appears to be an afterthought on selection of the case

SUNIL KUMAR NAYAK,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Ld. Ao.

272A(1)(d) of the act. 10. 5. Appellant reserves the right to add/alter/ modify/ delete any or all ground of appeal.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee did not file his ITR for the A.Y. 2018-19. Information in this case was gathered from AIR Information/TAS/26AS details. On the basis