DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 69 cannot be invoked and the sundry debtors has to be treated as business or profession income of the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, no existence of evidence in relation to any unaccounted independent identifiable other investment which was found during the course of survey. It is also admitted fact the appellant admittedly is engaged in business

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. Brief facts pertaining to this ground of appeal are that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,16,00,000/- in its bank account No. 660520110000367 with Bank of India during the demonetization period in SBN of Rs.1000/- and 500/- rupee notes. The immediate source of such cash was explained as the cash

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. Brief facts pertaining to this ground of appeal are that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,16,00,000/- in its bank account No. 660520110000367 with Bank of India during the demonetization period in SBN of Rs.1000/- and 500/- rupee notes. The immediate source of such cash was explained as the cash

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

391 c. Delhi Branch Stock – at Rs. 25,59,78,648/- d. Mumbai Branch Stock – at Rs. 53,62,45,741/- e. Bangalore Branch Stock at -Rs.16,51,51,691/- f. stock with other franchise at Rs. 10,65,57,868/- g. Consignment Stock at UK – at Rs. Rs.11,64,46,108 h. Consignment Stock

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68,04,689 and 15,79,200 From the above table, it can be noted that stock was properly recorded in the books of accounts and any excess/ shortage of stock in comparison to physical verification is duly verifiable and explainable. The indirect tax authorities failed to 29 Marie Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT consider the stock that was recorded

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs. 2,92,93,288/-represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers

KIRAN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

68,790 Security guard Rs. 63,380 Security guard Rs. 57,508 Security guard Rs. 52,734 Security guard Rs. 49,954 Security guard Rs. 40,000 Security guard Rs. 21,361 Rs. 15,63,529 Total income Rs. 3,67,862 4.3.2 The AO observed that the assesee has documentary evidence in support of boundary wall and mittibharai which

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

68 62-67 Mukesh Jain 2011-12 117 111-116 SangeetaMantri 2011-12 97 91-96 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 94-95 - Thereafter, ld.AO changed his stand and took the view to treat the entries as ‘Interest paid’ instead of earlier allegation as interest received and alleged that the amount appearing under the last column is the amount of interest

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

68 62-67 Mukesh Jain 2011-12 117 111-116 SangeetaMantri 2011-12 97 91-96 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 94-95 - Thereafter, ld.AO changed his stand and took the view to treat the entries as ‘Interest paid’ instead of earlier allegation as interest received and alleged that the amount appearing under the last column is the amount of interest

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

68 62-67 Mukesh Jain 2011-12 117 111-116 SangeetaMantri 2011-12 97 91-96 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 94-95 - Thereafter, ld.AO changed his stand and took the view to treat the entries as ‘Interest paid’ instead of earlier allegation as interest received and alleged that the amount appearing under the last column is the amount of interest

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

68 62-67 Mukesh Jain 2011-12 117 111-116 SangeetaMantri 2011-12 97 91-96 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 94-95 - Thereafter, ld.AO changed his stand and took the view to treat the entries as ‘Interest paid’ instead of earlier allegation as interest received and alleged that the amount appearing under the last column is the amount of interest

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

68 62-67 Mukesh Jain 2011-12 117 111-116 SangeetaMantri 2011-12 97 91-96 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 94-95 - Thereafter, ld.AO changed his stand and took the view to treat the entries as ‘Interest paid’ instead of earlier allegation as interest received and alleged that the amount appearing under the last column is the amount of interest

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

68 62-67 Mukesh Jain 2011-12 117 111-116 SangeetaMantri 2011-12 97 91-96 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 94-95 - Thereafter, ld.AO changed his stand and took the view to treat the entries as ‘Interest paid’ instead of earlier allegation as interest received and alleged that the amount appearing under the last column is the amount of interest

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

68 62-67 Mukesh Jain 2011-12 117 111-116 SangeetaMantri 2011-12 97 91-96 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 94-95 - Thereafter, ld.AO changed his stand and took the view to treat the entries as ‘Interest paid’ instead of earlier allegation as interest received and alleged that the amount appearing under the last column is the amount of interest

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

68 62-67 Mukesh Jain 2011-12 117 111-116 SangeetaMantri 2011-12 97 91-96 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 94-95 - Thereafter, ld.AO changed his stand and took the view to treat the entries as ‘Interest paid’ instead of earlier allegation as interest received and alleged that the amount appearing under the last column is the amount of interest

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

68 62-67 Mukesh Jain 2011-12 117 111-116 SangeetaMantri 2011-12 97 91-96 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 94-95 - Thereafter, ld.AO changed his stand and took the view to treat the entries as ‘Interest paid’ instead of earlier allegation as interest received and alleged that the amount appearing under the last column is the amount of interest

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case