SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

2 is concerned, apparently when the Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee was receiving money from the customers in hands against the payment on delivery of the vehicles on receipt from the dealer the question of such amount standing in the books of account of the assessee would not attract section 68 because the cash deposits

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

28,2022wherein it has\nheld that-\n\"Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Demonetization deposits)\n Assessment year 2017-18-Assessee-company was engaged in business of trading\nin gold, diamond jewellery etc. - During search and survey conducted on premises\nof assessee, huge deposits were found in its bank account after demonetization\nwas announced Initially

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

68 (Allahabad)/[2021] 438 ITR 657 (Allahabad)\n[10-02-2020) held that Where Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of\ncontract/subcontract income but failed to add interest income shown in books as\nother income, subsequently, on basis of audit objection, Assessing Officer was\njustified in invoking section 147/148 and reassessing 'interest income\nHon'ble Supreme Court

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 115BBE for\ntaxing the addition made of Rs. 1,71,28,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The action of Id.\nCIT(A) is illegal unjustified arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,28,000/-.\n3.\nThe assessee craves his right to add, amend

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

28. The ld CIT(A) relied upon the order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of assessee society for AY 2009-10 wherein it was held that JNU is not a specified Person within the meaning of section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act and contribution made is well within the object of the assessee society

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

28) From the above, by reading all the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 as also the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Central Government framing scheme for "E- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment under sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

28) From the above, by reading all the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 as also the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Central Government framing scheme for "E- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment under sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,940.00 the G.P. rate of 8.60% as against the declared G.P rate of 8.52% declared by assessee 2. On account of late deposit of employee 33,914.00 contribution of Provident Fund and ESI under sec. 36(1)(va) Total Additions 8,02,854.00 12. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) estimated the G.P. @ 8.56% as against

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,940.00 the G.P. rate of 8.60% as against the declared G.P rate of 8.52% declared by assessee 2. On account of late deposit of employee 33,914.00 contribution of Provident Fund and ESI under sec. 36(1)(va) Total Additions 8,02,854.00 12. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) estimated the G.P. @ 8.56% as against

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

28 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur Section 56(2)(viib). Valuation of Shares as per Rule 11UA (2) has to be done on the Valuation Date. Further, for the purpose of determining the value of shares on the basis of Net Asset Value Method [Rule 11UA(2)(a)], the Book Value

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 as all the circumstantial evidence found in the course of search conducted by the department proves that the money so received is an advance against the sale of agricultural land. The benefit of doubt, thus, goes in favour of the assessee so far as regard the nature of receipt is concerned as section 292C cast an obligation upon

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 as all the circumstantial evidence found in the course of search conducted by the department proves that the money so received is an advance against the sale of agricultural land. The benefit of doubt, thus, goes in favour of the assessee so far as regard the nature of receipt is concerned as section 292C cast an obligation upon

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 as all the circumstantial evidence found in the course of search conducted by the department proves that the money so received is an advance against the sale of agricultural land. The benefit of doubt, thus, goes in favour of the assessee so far as regard the nature of receipt is concerned as section 292C cast an obligation upon

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 as all the circumstantial evidence found in the course of search conducted by the department proves that the money so received is an advance against the sale of agricultural land. The benefit of doubt, thus, goes in favour of the assessee so far as regard the nature of receipt is concerned as section 292C cast an obligation upon

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

2(c) 52 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT This ground relates to addition of Rs.30,87,700/- under section 68 of the Act being the amount of Loan and Interest thereon for want of Bank A/c of the and entity and credit worthiness of creditors. It is seen that the appellant had taken unsecured loan of Rs.29

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

68,81,546/- and shown long term capital gain of Rs.5,39,67,684/- and claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs.5,39,67,384/-. The AO noted that the sale of agricultural lands at Muhana, Sanganer have been made on 06/02/2013 and further agricultural lands purchased on 28/08/2014 at Mauja Shiekpur, Fatehabad. Thus, it was noted by the AO that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

68 of 1984, Section 18, for \" six\nper centum\" (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).] per annum from the date on which he\ntook possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into\nCourt:[Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where\nsuch excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2(9) of Chapter II of the Finance Act, 2016 was amended by inserting the Seventh proviso to provide for a levy of surcharge at the rate of twenty five per cent of tax u/s.115BBE. Thus, the rate of tax after the amendment to Section 115BBE was 77.25% [60% + 25% Surcharge + 3% Cess], as against 30%. 4.30. Withdrawal

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess) without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. 2. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f