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)

1) Where the total income of an assessee, (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the Return of Income furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been arrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla, popularly known as the Jain Hawala Case. 1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that loose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been arrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla, popularly known as the Jain Hawala Case. 1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that loose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been arrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla, popularly known as the Jain Hawala Case. 1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that loose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

50C.\nOther similar Judicial Pronouncements:\nDhanveer Singh Gambhir vs ITO (2015) 68 SOT 0343 (Indore)\n• Prakash Karnawat vs ITO (2012) 49 SOT 0160 (JP)\n• In Raj Babbar vs ITO (2013) 56 SOT 0001 (Mum)\n12\nITA NO. 1398/JP/2024\nSHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR\nThus the Id. AR of the assesee prayed to confirm

M/SO. COLUMBUS OVERSEAS LLP,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

1,60,18,918/- only. Thus, the AO has disallowed interest expenses correctly as per provisions of law. The ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” [ emphasis supplied ] 5.2 In addition to the above addition the ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 10,72,932/- as the assessee has violated the provisions of section 43CA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

68 of the Act. The facts of the case as stated above are similar to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Kailash Jewellery House (ITA No.613/2010). In the facts of above case, a cash of Rs. 24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act. 6. Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts and circumstances of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 3,68

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Accommodation entry) Assessment vear 2008-09 Information was received from investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation entries received from certain established entry operators During investigation, it was found that entry operators were engaged in money laundering business for beneficiaries - According to Assessing Officer, sources

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 50C(1) of the LT. Act. 1961, arbitrarily, thus the value so adopted deserves to be hold bad in law. Ground No. 4: On facts and in circumstances of the matter, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s 68

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 50C(1) of the LT. Act. 1961, arbitrarily, thus the value so adopted deserves to be hold bad in law. Ground No. 4: On facts and in circumstances of the matter, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s 68

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 50C(1) of the LT. Act. 1961, arbitrarily, thus the value so adopted deserves to be hold bad in law. Ground No. 4: On facts and in circumstances of the matter, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s 68

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

68. In para 23 of the decision in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), it was observed as under: "23. This court is of opinion that the ITAT's findings do not reveal any fundamental error, calling for correction. The inferences drawn in respect of undeclared income were premised on the materials found as well as the statements recorded by the assessees

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

68. In para 23 of the decision in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), it was observed as under: "23. This court is of opinion that the ITAT's findings do not reveal any fundamental error, calling for correction. The inferences drawn in respect of undeclared income were premised on the materials found as well as the statements recorded by the assessees

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

68. In para 23 of the decision in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), it was observed as under: "23. This court is of opinion that the ITAT's findings do not reveal any fundamental error, calling for correction. The inferences drawn in respect of undeclared income were premised on the materials found as well as the statements recorded by the assessees