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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

275/ made on account of unexplained cash without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts in respect of agricultural income and did not furnish details of his assets and liabilities." 2. "Or the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on unexplained

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

275/ made on account of unexplained cash without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts in respect of agricultural income and did not furnish details of his assets and liabilities." 2. "Or the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on unexplained

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

275/ made on account of unexplained cash without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts in respect of agricultural income and did not furnish details of his assets and liabilities." 2. "Or the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on unexplained

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to run on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st January, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by limitation." In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to run on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st January, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by limitation." In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

68 – High court\nin impugned order noted that summons to shareholders under section 131 could not be\nserved with remark that addresses were not available and that shareholders were first time\nAssessees and were not earning enough income to make deposits in question and held that\nsince assessee did not offer to procure presence of shareholders, assessee failed

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

68 – High court\nin impugned order noted that summons to shareholders under section 131 could not be\nserved with remark that addresses were not available and that shareholders were first time\nAssessees and were not earning enough income to make deposits in question and held that\nsince assessee did not offer to procure presence of shareholders, assessee failed