M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

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

68,90,955/- 113 22 2007-08 (1,10,85,390) 96,08,164/- &117 6,000/- 2,06,57,878/- 95,72,490/- 121&126 27 2008-09 (1,36,88,648) 1,09,52,068/- 9,738/- 2,51,64,779/- 1,14,76,130/- 129&133 32 2009-10 (1,66,00,101) 1

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

viia)… (viib) Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares:’’ This has also

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

viia)… (viib) Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares:’’ This has also

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,VIDYUT BHAWAN, JAN PATH, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, , JAIPUR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

68).This write off is allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 4. The AO for disallowing the claim of bad debts has made certain observations which are incorrect and irrelevant. The fact that the amount written off has earlier been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee is verifiable from the ledger account of AVVNL

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

68]77]000@& vk jgk gSA bl ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mÙkj 16 bldk tokc Hkh lsBth nsaxsA iz0 17 losZ ds nkSjku rS;kj eky yxHkx 92 Vu gS ftldh dher 27]60]000@& crkbZ gSA LVkWd jftLVj ds vuqlkj rS;kj eky 11]83]570@& Vu vkrk gS ftldh dher yxHkx

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

68]77]000@& vk jgk gSA bl ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mÙkj 16 bldk tokc Hkh lsBth nsaxsA iz0 17 losZ ds nkSjku rS;kj eky yxHkx 92 Vu gS ftldh dher 27]60]000@& crkbZ gSA LVkWd jftLVj ds vuqlkj rS;kj eky 11]83]570@& Vu vkrk gS ftldh dher yxHkx

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

68]77]000@& vk jgk gSA bl ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mÙkj 16 bldk tokc Hkh lsBth nsaxsA iz0 17 losZ ds nkSjku rS;kj eky yxHkx 92 Vu gS ftldh dher 27]60]000@& crkbZ gSA LVkWd jftLVj ds vuqlkj rS;kj eky 11]83]570@& Vu vkrk gS ftldh dher yxHkx

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

viia) of the Act to the declared income of the appellant. The assessee objected to the proposed addition on the ground that during the search no incriminating material indicating any undisclosed income for the year under consideration was found, which is also apparently clear from the assessment order itself. Further it was contended since there is no incriminating material found

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

viia) could not be said to have been made in rectification of an error apparent in assessment order—Court had no reason to interfere with impugned order and, therefore, did not find that any substantial question of law was involved in this case—Application and appeal dismissed (vi) In the case of Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons

ITO, KOTA vs. KOTA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68,019/- In the quantum appeal only two additions were sustained namely provision for bad debts and bad interest of Rs. 73,51,000/- and deduction for TDS of Rs. 19,803/-. The AO initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) and levied the penalty against these two additions vide order dated 19.03.2015. The assessee challenged

RADHEY RAM GODARA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

viia) Further, the appellant has not produced any evidence which may prove the creditworthiness of Shri Mahaveer Prasad. It has been held in a number of cases by the Judicial Authorities that transactions through banking channels are not sacrosanct. Therefore, looking to the 15 Shri Radhey Ram Godara vs ITO, Ward- 3(5), Jaipur total facts and circumstances