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)

section 68 was justified.’’ In the present case also, the assessee could not prove genuineness of unsecured loan taken and underneath sources for making these investments. Hence, the addition made by the AO is found to be justified. SHRI UPENDRAF KUMAR SONI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Bikram

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)

section 68 was justified.’’ In the present case also, the assessee could not prove genuineness of unsecured loan taken and underneath sources for making these investments. Hence, the addition made by the AO is found to be justified. SHRI UPENDRAF KUMAR SONI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Bikram

RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

68 and consequently, the invocation of section 115BBE was justified. In this regard, reliance is placed on rationale held in the cases of:- ******************************** 20. Further, mere submission of PAN details does not discharge the onus of the appellant to prove the said advances as held in the case of PCIT Vs Bikram Singh [2017] 85 taxmann.com 104 (Delhi

MUKESH KUMAR SARAOGI,CHURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a). the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of thirty per cent

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133A of the Act, without any\nindependent corroborative evidence or material substantiating such addition, is legally\nunsustainable and devoid of merit. The settled position of law, consistently upheld by\nvarious judicial forums including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts, and\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunals, categorically holds that statements obtained during\nsurvey operations lack evidentiary value and cannot

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA vs. SH. VINOD KUMAR JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

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

sections like 68 or 69C to prevent double taxation. The appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of Gopal S. Pandith DCIT (74 taman.com 273

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 for share subscription by various shareholders and Rs. 5,95,00,000/- taken by the assessee as unsecured loans and the same was also added u/s. 68 of Act. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a detailed paper book containing 273

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

68[or section 44BB orsection 44BBB], as the case may be, and the assessee has claimed his income to be lower than the profits or gains so deemed to be the profits and gains of his business, as the case may be, during such 69 [previous year,] ] The following clause (iv) shall be inserted after clause

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

section 115BBE of the Act as detailed above based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the replies of the taxpayer.\n10. Assessee challenges the finding so recorded by the Id. PCIT by way of the present appeal on the grounds as stated herein above. Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

section 148A(b) and also at the time of regular assessment proceeding the assessee submitted that he was registered under VAT and GST. Copies of sales return under VAT and GST were furnished. The same are again being furnished and are available on paper book page No cited supra. It is the submission of the assessee that once

ITO, JAIPUR vs. LAND MARK DILSAY P LTD, JAIPUR

Appeals are dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs

section 68 was not correct. The assessee had filed necessary details for the purpose of proving that it had received actual share application money and the shares had been allotted. Shares had been allotted to the respective companies. The assessee-company was showing the shareholders in its balance sheet and these companies were also showing the assets in their

ITO, JAIPUR vs. LAND MARK DILSAY P LTD, JAIPUR

Appeals are dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs

section 68 was not correct. The assessee had filed necessary details for the purpose of proving that it had received actual share application money and the shares had been allotted. Shares had been allotted to the respective companies. The assessee- company was showing the shareholders in its balance sheet and these companies were also showing the assets in their

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68/ 69 etc. 13.1 Significantly, the PCIT, while seeking to set aside the action of AO and remitting the matter back for further enquiries, did not bring any definite material to show any incorrect assumption of such facts on this score. Besides, no observations are found in the impugned revisional order suggesting a course to be adopted towards manner

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68/ 69 etc. 13.1 Significantly, the PCIT, while seeking to set aside the action of AO and remitting the matter back for further enquiries, did not bring any definite material to show any incorrect assumption of such facts on this score. Besides, no observations are found in the impugned revisional order suggesting a course to be adopted towards manner

GEMORIOUM,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

section 68 of the Act, assessee cannot be expected to establish source of the source. In this context, he placed heavy reliance on the following decisions : (1) CIT v. Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd.[2013] 32 taxmann.com 91 (All.) (2) Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT[2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gau.). (3) S. Hastimal

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

273 (Mum.) (SB). The said claim was not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act and it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act as it was over riding all proceedings earlier taken overall. The claim

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

273 (Mum.) (SB). The said claim was not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act and it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act as it was over riding all proceedings earlier taken overall. The claim

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

273 (Mum.) (SB). The said claim was not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act and it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act as it was over riding all proceedings earlier taken overall. The claim

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

68,18,660/-. There is no difference between\nITR filed u/s. 153A and 139 of the Act. Consequently, the case was taken\nup for scrutiny for A.Ys 2018-19. In the assessment proceeding Id. AO\nnoted that during search operation mobile [iphone] phone was taken in\ncustody and some business related charts were identified in the mobile\nphone of Shri