SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

50 C are quoted below :-\n50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of\nthe transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or\nboth, is less than the value adopted or assessed 51 [or assessable] by any\nauthority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 treatings deposits of SBNs found in its bank\naccount as unexplained credit in hands of assessee Held, yes [Paras 70 to 77] [In\nfavour of revenue]\"\nThe relevant paras from the order are as under:-\n\"72. Furthermore, the conduct of the assessee was abnormal and it had caused\nimmense harm to well intention notification

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

section pertaining to the date after 15.12.2016. The amendment provisions are not retrospective in operation and are not applicable in the present case and therefore the ld. CIT(A) has been wrongly taxed the addition made u/s 68 of the Act by applying the amended provisions. a.3.(ix) In support of our submission given in paras hereinabove the reliance

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

50,500/- to Vinamra\nEnterprises and Nav Bharat Nirman Co, as per balance sheet as on 31.03.2012.\nDirectors of the assessee company have substantial interest in the concern to\nwhich advance was given. Hence provision of section 2(22)(e) may applicable on\nsuch payments.\"\nOn the basis of such observation (Mentioned as above), the then AO i.e.\nITO

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

2(c) 52 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT This ground relates to addition of Rs.30,87,700/- under section 68 of the Act being the amount of Loan and Interest thereon for want of Bank A/c of the and entity and credit worthiness of creditors. It is seen that the appellant had taken unsecured loan of Rs.29,50

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

section 12AA as a charitable entity undertaking educational activity and thus qualify as an eligible entity for receiving contributions from the assessee society. The contribution of Rs 3,86,84,912 is made by the assessee society out of income generated during the year under consideration as apparent from the return of income and computation of income available

RADHAKISHNA 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)

50. Further, the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 and faceless assessment scheme issued vide two notifications each dated 12-9-2019 and 13-8-2020 under Sections 143(3-A) and (3-B) of the Act clearly stipulate that the provision of Section 127 of the Act shall apply subject to exceptions, modifications and adaptations as stipulated therein

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)

50. Further, the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 and faceless assessment scheme issued vide two notifications each dated 12-9-2019 and 13-8-2020 under Sections 143(3-A) and (3-B) of the Act clearly stipulate that the provision of Section 127 of the Act shall apply subject to exceptions, modifications and adaptations as stipulated therein

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

2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to that A.Y. 2013-14. It is pertinent to note that the ld. CIT(A) had issued the show cause notice to the assessee to tax the share capital under section 68

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

2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to that A.Y. 2013-14. It is pertinent to note that the ld. CIT(A) had issued the show cause notice to the assessee to tax the share capital under section 68

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

50,00,000 On perusal of these documents the assessing officer was of the view that these loose papers appear to be related to cash loans/advances given by the assessee. The assessee was asked to explain the nature of these transactions along with source thereof. He was further asked to show cause, in absence of any proper justification

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

50,00,000 On perusal of these documents the assessing officer was of the view that these loose papers appear to be related to cash loans/advances given by the assessee. The assessee was asked to explain the nature of these transactions along with source thereof. He was further asked to show cause, in absence of any proper justification

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

50,00,000 On perusal of these documents the assessing officer was of the view that these loose papers appear to be related to cash loans/advances given by the assessee. The assessee was asked to explain the nature of these transactions along with source thereof. He was further asked to show cause, in absence of any proper justification

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

50,00,000 On perusal of these documents the assessing officer was of the view that these loose papers appear to be related to cash loans/advances given by the assessee. The assessee was asked to explain the nature of these transactions along with source thereof. He was further asked to show cause, in absence of any proper justification

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

50,000/ having been made to them, inflating the book value of the assets to create an artificial share premium value to disguise the routing of money as share capital and share premium, all this in a company which has a turnover of NIL in A.Y. 2017-18, should have evoked a greater scrutiny. There are no bills invoices

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2,90,93,500/- made by the AO by applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, it is noted that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of 15 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur accounts as sales are already part of the income which

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

2. Excess Cash 9,50,000/- Unexplained Money u/s To be tax @ Found 69A 60% u/s 115BBE 3. Unaccounted 21,00,000/- Unexplained To be tax @ Construction Expenditure u/s 69C 60% u/s 115BBE In response thereto, appellant filed a very detailed submission on dated 27.09.21, running into 9 pages (PB 7-16) explaining the entire legal & factual position, touching each

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

section 115BBE are warranted. Ground No. 2 2. The learned AO grossly erred in law and on facts in not accepting agricultural income. Looking into the facts of the ground, brought on record by the appellant assessee it is evident that in a limited scrutiny case. AO cannot in queue about issue not covered by the CASS reasons

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

section 2(14)(iii)(a) or 2(14)(iii)(b) as these stood then and thus the provisions of capital gains are not attracted in the case in view of notification dated 06.01.1994. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown