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

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

1,50,00,000/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act in hands of assessee ignoring the fact that the transaction made with M/s Amit Colonizers Ltd was business transaction. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 83,96,410/- under section 56

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

56,000-1,71,28,000) deposited in bank was out of the\naccumulated savings of the assessee.\n2.2. Advance so received from the customers was then deposited in two of the\nbank accounts and such deposits in bank, were utilized for making\npayments against purchases of gold bars. The said gold bars were\npurchased from the following parties\nParticulars

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68. [Russian Technology Center (P.) Ltd. 2013 Taxmann.com 400 (Delhi-Trib)] 2.8. Mere inadequacy of an enquiry or insufficiency of material on record can be a ground to invoke powers under Section 263. Under identical set of facts, 22 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur [2021] 214 TTJ (Chd.) 908, jurisdiction under Section

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)

vii) is reproduced hereunder: “It is not the case of the revenue that assessee has not shown the relevant stock register before the assessing officer. The assessee has maintained the complete stock tally in its accounting software. Such books of accounts are audited, quantitative records produced before the tax auditor, such quantitative records are certified by tax audit

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

56,05,480) is treated as unexplained. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. (vii) Therefore the addition to the extent of Rs. 4,55,639/- is sustained instead of Rs. 5,52,241/- made by the assessing officer and the balance addition of Rs. 96,602/- (Rs. 5,52,241/-minus Rs. 4,55,639/-) is deleted. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 stands

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

56,05,480) is treated as unexplained. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. (vii) Therefore the addition to the extent of Rs. 4,55,639/- is sustained instead of Rs. 5,52,241/- made by the assessing officer and the balance addition of Rs. 96,602/- (Rs. 5,52,241/-minus Rs. 4,55,639/-) is deleted. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 stands

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

vii) investment or deposit in any public sector company: Provided that where an investment or deposit in any public sector company has been made and such public sector company ceases to be a public sector company,— (A) such investment made in the shares of such company shall be deemed to be an investment made under this clause for a period

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. TRUGOLD BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

1) are not applicable. Further the amended provisions of sec 56 (2) of the Act specify the various income to be assessed under this section. The premium on shares has been included u/s sec 56(2) (viiib) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2014, which is reproduced as under: "56(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

56 then, such sum shall not be deducted from the cost for which the asset was acquired or the written down value or the fair market value, as the case may be, in computing the cost of acquisition.] Thus the advance of 8 Crores received and forfeited by the appellant will be subjected to tax as per section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2) JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. SH. PANKAJ MEENA, JAIPUR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

68,60,000/-\nAdd: Registration Charges\nRs.14,01,600/-\nTotal\nRs.1,82,61,600/-\nAs the assessee has concealed income of Rs.1,82,61,600/-, therefore, penalty\nproceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately.\nThe appellant has contended in his ground of appeal that the AO ignored the\nsubmissions made and evidences adduced by assessee which proved it beyond

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

vii) In view of the above, since the Income was not charged/considered under the Correct Head/Section and the correct tax was not levied by the AO/NeAC, therefore due to incorrect assumption of facts and incorrect application of law the tax been under computed/under assessed by Rs.33,45,949/- in the case while passing the Assessment Order on 29.09.2021, the same

RAJASTHAN TRANSMAT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 7(2),, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MEETHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act, which has absolutely no application to the facts of the case and it is incorrect. The ld. AR further submitted that section 56(2)(vii)(b) was applicable from assessment year 2013-14. In this regard, CBDT Instruction No. 2/2015 dated 29-1-2015 is clear on the issue in which it has been held

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

1, KOPPAL. (Copy at Case laws PB Page No 355-360) Unexplained cash deposits in two bank accounts - Legal tender money in demonetization of currency - AO culled out, the deposits that was made of bank notes that were declared as not legal tender owing to demonetization of currency - HELD THAT: - Both AO and CIT(A) accepted the fact that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

56. Section 153A of the Act is titled "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is connected to Section 132 which deals with 'search and seizure'. Both these provisions, therefore, have to be read together. Section 153A is indeed an extremely ITA Nos. 1057 to 1062 & 1210/JP/2018. M/s. Kota Dall Mill, Kota. potent power which enables

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

56. Section 153A of the Act is titled "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is connected to Section 132 which deals with 'search and seizure'. Both these provisions, therefore, have to be read together. Section 153A is indeed an extremely ITA Nos. 1057 to 1062 & 1210/JP/2018. M/s. Kota Dall Mill, Kota. potent power which enables

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

56. Section 153A of the Act is titled "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is connected to Section 132 which deals with 'search and seizure'. Both these provisions, therefore, have to be read together. Section 153A is indeed an extremely ITA Nos. 1057 to 1062 & 1210/JP/2018. M/s. Kota Dall Mill, Kota. potent power which enables

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

56. Section 153A of the Act is titled "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is connected to Section 132 which deals with 'search and seizure'. Both these provisions, therefore, have to be read together. Section 153A is indeed an extremely ITA Nos. 1057 to 1062 & 1210/JP/2018. M/s. Kota Dall Mill, Kota. potent power which enables

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GODAWARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Regarding the applying the provisions of section 56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 we may submit as under: - a) As per provisions of section 56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall