SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

ab initio Void and is liable to be quashed 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the learned AO not passed in accordance with law It is submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee has deposited cash worth

GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

ab initio Void and is liable to be quashed 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the learned AO not passed in accordance with law It is submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee has deposited cash worth

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 and taxed the same in terms of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1ST Appeal The assessment order so passed by assessment unit was appealed before the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC who also sustained the addition made by ld. AO. Submissions :- The appellant wishes to withdraw ground nos. 1, 5,6,7 and 8 as taken

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

ab initio and are liable to be quashed.” 13 Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT In case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd [2017] 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High court that where information was received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry

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

2) Jaipur is ab- initio void. The Notification S O 1466E dated 29.03.2022 mentions that it shall come into force with the date of its publication i.e. 29.03.2022 whereas notice under section 148 has also been issued on 33 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023 ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni 29.3.2022 subsequent to the notification. In view of this

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)

ab initio. 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

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)

ab initio. 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

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

ab initio\nhaving been taken up for compulsory scrutiny u/s 143(3) allegedly for the\nreason of being a survey case and in complete violation of the extant\nInstructions of the CBDT issued for taking up the cases in\nscrutiny/compulsory scrutiny.\n2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A)\nerred in not quashing

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

ab-initio and bad in law. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur erred in holding that assessment order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35 10.09.2011 S B B J 1597500.00 10000.00 1607500.00 36 19.09.2011 C B I 1607500.00 10000.00 1617500.00 37 21.09.2011 C B I 1617500.00 30000.00 1647500.00 38 23.09.2011 C B I 1647500.00 15000.00 1662500.00 17 Pappu Jaiswal

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

68 SOT 449 (Jaipur Trib) while examining the provisions of 153C of the Income Tax Act which observed that “Satisfaction note itself must display reasons or basis of conclusion that the documents belong to a person other than the searched person. It is also settled law that the satisfaction note has to be read as it is without any addition

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

68 on account of unexplained cash credits and addition made of Rs. 3,50,150 by invoking section 145(3) without finding any defects in the books of accounts and by ignoring the fact that accounts of the appellant have been duly audited and all the details of cash credit have been duly submitted. 30. That the appellate authority

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

68 on account of unexplained cash credits and addition made of Rs. 3,50,150 by invoking section 145(3) without finding any defects in the books of accounts and by ignoring the fact that accounts of the appellant have been duly audited and all the details of cash credit have been duly submitted. 30. That the appellate authority

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to interfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority." The onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the interest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively only for the purpose of making investments which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 68 of the Act is not applicable. Therefore though prima facie it appears that the addition made in the hands of the assessee is not justified but from a close look to the diaries we find that Exhibit 11 is having transaction of 24.11.16, 26.11.16, 27.11.16, 29.11.16, 30.11.16, 01.12.16, 03.12.16 & 15.12.16, and Exhibit 24 is having transaction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 68 of the Act is not applicable. Therefore though prima facie it appears that the addition made in the hands of the assessee is not justified but from a close look to the diaries we find that Exhibit 11 is having transaction of 24.11.16, 26.11.16, 27.11.16, 29.11.16, 30.11.16, 01.12.16, 03.12.16 & 15.12.16, and Exhibit 24 is having transaction

SH. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 68 of the Act is not applicable. Therefore though prima facie it appears that the addition made in the hands of the assessee is not justified but from a close look to the diaries we find that Exhibit 11 is having transaction of 24.11.16, 26.11.16, 27.11.16, 29.11.16, 30.11.16, 01.12.16, 03.12.16 & 15.12.16, and Exhibit 24 is having transaction

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

35,63,950.00 4,30,30,163.00 4,30,30,163.00 2,74,04,764.00 2,14,56,689.00 1,78,92,739.00 PB-I [46- PB-I [58-73] 57] 21.03.2016 17.12.2018 4 2013-2014 20,48,030.00 8,14,33,841.00 8,14,33,841.00 6,17,64,673.00 2,52,62,800.00 2

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

ab initio and not justifiable, therefore, deserve to be annulled. 2. That learned PCIT erred in holding that the order section 143(3) passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Pr. CIT erred in applying provision