RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

430 for the subject AY (PB 1).Re-assessment order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22 May 2023 was passed by Ld. Faceless Assessing Office (“Ld. FAO”) assessing total income at Rs 7,55,95,441 by making the following addition: • Unexplained cash credits under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2. I, therefore, propose to assess/re-assess the income for the\nsaid assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within\n30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed\nform of your income for the said assessment year.\n3. This notice is being issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2. I, therefore, propose to assess/re-assess the income for the\nsaid assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within\n30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed\nform of your income for the said assessment year.\n3. This notice is being issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n\n2. I, therefore, propose to assess/re-assess the income for the\nsaid assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within\n30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed\nform of your income for the said assessment year.\n\n3. This notice

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

430 ITR 504 (Ker.) (WA.No.984 OF 2019] "The writ petition sought for a declaration that the amendments made by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, to Section 1158BE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 enhancing the rate of income tax, for specified incomes which are unexplained, to 60% and the surcharge provided in the Finance

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SONI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

430/- making: (i) an addition of Rs. 5,69,79,862/- as unexplained investment as per discussion in para – 5 of assessment order and (ii) an addition of Rs. 59,17,397/- as unexplained expenditure as per discussion in para – 6 of assessment order. The assessee, thereafter moved an application u/s 154 to A.O. for rectification of apparent mistake

SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SONI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

430/- making: (i) an addition of Rs. 5,69,79,862/- as unexplained investment as per discussion in para – 5 of assessment order and (ii) an addition of Rs. 59,17,397/- as unexplained expenditure as per discussion in para – 6 of assessment order. The assessee, thereafter moved an application u/s 154 to A.O. for rectification of apparent mistake

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SONI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

430/- making: (i) an addition of Rs. 5,69,79,862/- as unexplained investment as per discussion in para – 5 of assessment order and (ii) an addition of Rs. 59,17,397/- as unexplained expenditure as per discussion in para – 6 of assessment order. The assessee, thereafter moved an application u/s 154 to A.O. for rectification of apparent mistake

SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SONI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

430/- making: (i) an addition of Rs. 5,69,79,862/- as unexplained investment as per discussion in para – 5 of assessment order and (ii) an addition of Rs. 59,17,397/- as unexplained expenditure as per discussion in para – 6 of assessment order. The assessee, thereafter moved an application u/s 154 to A.O. for rectification of apparent mistake

SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SONI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

430/- making: (i) an addition of Rs. 5,69,79,862/- as unexplained investment as per discussion in para – 5 of assessment order and (ii) an addition of Rs. 59,17,397/- as unexplained expenditure as per discussion in para – 6 of assessment order. The assessee, thereafter moved an application u/s 154 to A.O. for rectification of apparent mistake

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SONI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

430/- making: (i) an addition of Rs. 5,69,79,862/- as unexplained investment as per discussion in para – 5 of assessment order and (ii) an addition of Rs. 59,17,397/- as unexplained expenditure as per discussion in para – 6 of assessment order. The assessee, thereafter moved an application u/s 154 to A.O. for rectification of apparent mistake

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

68 r.w.s 263: 5.1 In the case of CIT v. Vijay Kumar Koganti [2020] 120 taxmann.com 430 (Mad) where it was held that: "Section

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

68 r.w.s 263: 5.1 In the case of CIT v. Vijay Kumar Koganti [2020] 120 taxmann.com 430 (Mad) where it was held that: "Section

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of post dated cheques found from the third party. Kailash Chand Maheshwari vs. DCIT 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,47,150/- u/s 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

430 wherein it is held as under: "Section 68, read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

section 68. [Para 16] In the instance case before me , the AO has not followed the due procedure of law u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, requiring the Assessee to produce the directors of the lender company was not legally tenable in view of the judgment of Gujrat High Court (supra). 5.12 It is noted that no clinching evidences

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

section 68. [Para 16] In the instance case before me , the AO has not followed the due procedure of law u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, requiring the Assessee to produce the directors of the lender company was not legally tenable in view of the judgment of Gujrat High Court (supra). 5.12 It is noted that no clinching evidences

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

68 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 on the basis of post dated cheques found from the third party.\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has\nerred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,47,150/- u/s 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 on account of disallowance of interest expenditure.\n8. Under