AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

68 of the Act for the year under consideration. The ld. AO also noted that the 5 Aman Exports International vs. DCIT assessee made the payment in violation of section 40A(3

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,19,218/-were made in cash and thereby it also violates the provision\nof section 40A(3) of the Act. Based

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 is contrary to law and\ndeserves to be deleted.\n2.\nThe disallowance under Section 40A(3) is unjustified

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3. It may be noted that in AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 also assessee has declared the agricultural income in the return filed u/s 153A which was assessed by AO as income from other sources. However, in these AYs the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt. 19.08.2019 has deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that additions

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3. It may be noted that in AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 also assessee has declared the agricultural income in the return filed u/s 153A which was assessed by AO as income from other sources. However, in these AYs the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt. 19.08.2019 has deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that additions

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3. It may be noted that in AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 also assessee has declared the agricultural income in the return filed u/s 153A which was assessed by AO as income from other sources. However, in these AYs the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt. 19.08.2019 has deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that additions

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3. It may be noted that in AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 also assessee has declared the agricultural income in the return filed u/s 153A which was assessed by AO as income from other sources. However, in these AYs the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt. 19.08.2019 has deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that additions

GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

40A(2) of the Act. At the outset we note that Section 13(1) of the Act contemplates as an exception to Section 11 and 12 of the Act so far as any part of the income of the property held Trust is used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A(3). iv) Alleged non-verification of claim of depreciation on computer and furniture and vehicle running expenses, advertisement expenses v) Abnormal increase in Cash in hand post survey vi) Outstanding liabilities in sundry creditors for advertisement and rent expenses and staff payable vii) Alleged non-verification of construction in building and non- reconciliation of trial balance 3 ITA 283/JP/2020_

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68. (g) In the case of "Dewas Soya Ltd. Vs ITO ITA NO.336/IND/2012" HAT Hon'ble ITAT has also held just because the amounts were received from the buyers in cash, the assessee cannot be penalized because the restriction placed for payment u/s 40A(3

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

ITO , NCRB JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

68 of the Act. Ld. AO on perusal of records also noted that the assessee is making the cash payment in contravention of provision of section 40A(3

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

40A(3) is not applicable if the payment is made in cash. J. Similarly, the freight expenses which are paid in cash of Rs 37,000/- (2 times) on dated 24.10.2017 is out of exception as per Rule 6DD as in Rule 6DD at point no K it is mentioned that where the payment is made by any person

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

40A(3) is not applicable if the payment is made in cash. J. Similarly, the freight expenses which are paid in cash of Rs 37,000/- (2 times) on dated 24.10.2017 is out of exception as per Rule 6DD as in Rule 6DD at point no K it is mentioned that where the payment is made by any person

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 27.09.2022 by making addition of Rs. 8,60,03,806/- u/s 68 of the Act and addition of Rs. 12,63,307/- 26 ITO vs. Vasudev Hemrajani Aggrieved by the above order passed by the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Decision of CIT(A): The CIT(A) vide

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

40A(2)(b) for determination of ALP, there cannot be any adjustment in the income of the assessee on the ground of TP adjustment. Accordingly these grounds of the assessee are allowed. The additions made in the income of the assessee on account of TP adjustment in the domestic transaction are deleted. (x) ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mahindra

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

40A(2)(b) for determination of ALP, there cannot be any adjustment in the income of the assessee on the ground of TP adjustment. Accordingly these grounds of the assessee are allowed. The additions made in the income of the assessee on account of TP adjustment in the domestic transaction are deleted. (x) ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mahindra

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68. (f) In the case of "Dewas Soya Ltd. Vs ITO ITA NO.336/IND/2012" HAT Hon'ble ITAT has also held just because the amounts were received from the buyers in cash, the assessee cannot be penalized because the restriction placed for payment u/s 40A(3