MOTHERS EDUCATION HUB,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

40A(2)(b) of IT Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in treating the entire cash deposit during demonetization period as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and thereby enhancing the addition to 2 Mothers Education Hub, Jaipur. Rs. 53,62,500/- as against Rs. 5 lacs made

LALITA KUMARI,ANTA DISTRICT BARAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 2(41) as per which a son of brother-in-law is not a relative. 3.) The AO further observed that the assessee had given interest @ 18% P.A. to the person covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is more higher than the prevailing market rate i.e. maximum 12% 6 Lalita Kumari

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68 has already been met with in the assessment proceeding and 36 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur the issue is raised is without considering the facts already on record submitted vide reply dated 26.12.2019 to the AO. The ld. PCIT in her SCN in point no. v and vi raised those issues which were

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

section 145(3) of Act. The following additions are made by the AO. S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Trading addition of Rs. 7,68,940/- by applying 7,68,940.00 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

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

section 145(3) of Act. The following additions are made by the AO. S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Trading addition of Rs. 7,68,940/- by applying 7,68,940.00 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

BANSAL CLASSES PVIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, revenue’s ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 40A(2)(b), we have already examined this issue at length in ITA No. 698/JP/14 & 738/JP/14 and as discussed therein, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed. Accordingly, both the revenue’s and assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 67. Regarding ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal, the relevant finding

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, which is confirmed. However, as pointed out by the appellant in his submissions, apparently, there is a calculation mistake in the assessment order; thus, interests should have been computed on Rs.1,68

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10. 5.2 Reading the provision of section 68, it becomes clear that the said section is attracted to make addition in respect of unexplained cash credit in following circumstances

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10. 5.2 Reading the provision of section 68, it becomes clear that the said section is attracted to make addition in respect of unexplained cash credit in following circumstances

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10. 5.2 Reading the provision of section 68, it becomes clear that the said section is attracted to make addition in respect of unexplained cash credit in following circumstances

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10. 5.2 Reading the provision of section 68, it becomes clear that the said section is attracted to make addition in respect of unexplained cash credit in following circumstances

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

40A(3) of the\nAct, salary has been kept at just less than 20,000/- since the same would have been liable\nto be disallowed if salary payment was greater than 20,000/- in cash. This shows that it is\na pre meditated action on the part of the assessee trust with the motive of siphoning off\nfunds for personal

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

b) and clause (a) of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment order is set aside to be made afresh in the light of the observation made in this order. The AO is required to make necessary verification in respect of the observations made in this order after allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.” 5. Feeling

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

40A(2)(b) of the Act and even the show cause\nnotice is silent about that.\nIn our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect\nprinciples to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly\nanalysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not\nthink that

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

B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 621 & 622/JPR/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta, 168, New Mandi Yard, Sri Ganganagar, PAN No.: ABMPK 3233A ...... Respondent ITA No. 451 & 452/JPR/2025 (A. Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Manoj Kumar