RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

55 ITR (T) 52 (Kolkata-Trib), DOJ 18-11-2016., (v) CIT v/s\nLaxmandass Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC)\nIn this regard reference is made to section 292BB of the Act:-\nNotice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances.\n292BB. Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or co-\noperated in any inquiry relating to an assessment

WORLDWELFARE HEALTH FEDERATION,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab. No Show Cause Notice Before The Rejection Of The Application Was Issued To The Assessee. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Not Given Adequate Time For Submitting Responses To Notices U/S 133(6). Notices Were Issued On 24/03/2023 (Friday) To Three Parties & Without Waiting For Their Responses, The Order Of Rejection Was Issued On 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) In A Hurried Manner. 4. Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend In Any Manner The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing.”

ac)(iii) on 22nd September 2022. e) In-depth inquiry was made by Ld. CIT( E), while processing the application for registration. A detailed reply running into 21 pages alongwith 27 annexures and the photographs of the Trust premises was furnished on 13/01/2023 ( Please see PB No. 23 to 43). Second reply running into 16 pages with 13 annexures

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA vs. SH. VINOD KUMAR JAIN, KOTA

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

55,73,180/- on 31-05-2021 after making addition of Rs.17,80,650/- on account of unexplained creditor, addition of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans and addition of Rs.81,20,788/- on account of unexplained investment in re-making of jewellery (Gold). 3.2 It is also noted from the assessment order at page

SHRI RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 & 68A of the paper book as under :- 27 Shri Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur. 28 Shri Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur. Thus it is clear from the show cause notice issued under section 263 that the ld. PCIT has invoked the provisions of section 263 only on the issue (a) that genuineness of fresh inflow of unsecured loan

M/S ORTHOPAEDICS AND TRAUMA CENTER,JHALAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

25. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

Bench: the ld. CIT(A), assessment order dated 2-06-2021 was under challenge. Vide said assessment order, the AO computed total income of the assessee at 1,02,55,230/- by observing in the manner as:-

55,230/-. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny as per guidelines dated 17-09-2020 issued by CBDT. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 23-09-2020. 6. It is the case of the Department that during the survey proceedings, a "Meyer Diary was found and impounded, which

GIRDHARI LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

AC during assessment proceedings or before me during appellate proceedings, despite affording sufficient number of opportunities and hence, I find no infirmity in the order of AO. Accordingly, the addition made of Rs. 86,90,500/- is confirmed. As a result, appeal is dismissed. 7. Ground no. 2 is in respect of rejection of books of accounts

SHRI DINESH OJHA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

55,000/- out of which receipts of of Rs. 32653/ submitted and not allowed by learned Appellate Authority in lake of no additional application placed front of at CIT/ITO under Rule 46A. Whereas has actually paid for payment and request to allow. 3. That the assesse declared business income u/s 44AD on sales 712752/ turnover which worked

CARELEAVERS INNER CIRCLE FORUM,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

2. Application under section 12 AB was rejected on the following grounds. • Application non maintainable taken benefit of section 11 or 12 Careleavers Inner Circle Forum vs. CIT (E) • Discrepancies in Article of Association • Business objects • Benefit to interested person • Genuineness of Activities The 2nd mentioned application i.e. u/s 80G was rejected on the following two grounds; • Approval

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

55 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT time to time by the Hon'ble High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the various decisions including the decision in the case of Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 154 ITR 148 (SC) as well as in the case of Union of India Vs. Aazadi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

55 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT time to time by the Hon'ble High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the various decisions including the decision in the case of Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 154 ITR 148 (SC) as well as in the case of Union of India Vs. Aazadi

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

55,71,870 | 3,83,76,235.81 | | | Vehicles | 85,46,685 | 66,05,500.58 | | B. | Intangible Assets | | | | | Computer Software | 1,97,27,351 | 6,66,98,129.05 | | | Total | 63,96,05,924 | 62,06,08,800.83 | | C. | Capital Work In Progress | 2,82,05,679 | 0.00 | | | Total | 66,78,11,603 | 62,06,08,800.83 | ## Inventories | Particulars

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

2, 3 , 6, 20 & 26. However, the perusal of the statement of Shri Nikhil Kr.Goyal reveals that in the entire statement, Shri Nikhil Kumar Goyal has no where alleged that he made any unaccounted purchases from the assessee. He also expressed his inability in furnishing the addresses of the persons appearing in the loose papers on the ground that these

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

55,435 and total debits were at\n25,99,41,868 from account opening date to 14.09.2018. Major credit transactions\nwere from M/s Om Shree Ram infrareal Private Limited. This M/s Om Shree Ram\nInfrareal Private Limited is a private limited company incorporated on 13.08.2012\nhaving its registered office at 409-413, 4th Floor Crops Arcade K-12, Malviya\nMarg

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

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

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

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

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

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

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

AC. has finally added higher of the two amount namely trading addition and disallowances out of purchases, accordingly, considering the finding of the A.O., the final addition in AY 2007-08 is upheld on account of unverifiable purchase to the extent of Rs. 3.25,000/- and appellant will get the resultant relief." 9 Dinesh Haldia vs. DCIT In the earlier

ROOM NO. NA-103, NEW ANNEXE, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, , JAIPUR vs. SHRI LAXMI RAM KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR

section 144 of the Act and was issued the show cause notice on 04.02.2014 asking the assessee to file reply and furnish details as requested vide notice issued u/s. 142(1) and case was posted for hearing on 14.02.2014. On the same date also neither the reply of the show cause notice filed nor any details were filed