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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68. Accordingly, ld. AO appropriately did not transgress his jurisdiction. His action was well in accordance with the law. 4. The assessment was completed on the basis of exhaustive enquiries made by ld. AO and detailed submissions along with relevant documents placed on record by the assessee Company. Thus, no error can be attributed to such an order passed

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

56(2) (viib) of the Act is included in definition of section 2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to A.Y. 2013-14. (vii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech

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

56(2) (viib) of the Act is included in definition of section 2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to A.Y. 2013-14. (vii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

viii) r.w.s 57(iv) r.w.s 145B(1) of the Act.\n2. Basic and Undisputed Facts:\nThe assessee made a detailed submission before the AO vide its letter\ndt (PB 2-6) hence for better position the content thereof being\nreproduced here as under. It was submitted before the AO that (PB-9)\n“1Date of Acquisition of the land:\nThe

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

56(2) (viib) of the Act is included in definition of section 2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to A.Y. 2013-14. (viii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech

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

68 (Allahabad)/[2021] 438 ITR 657 (Allahabad)\n[10-02-2020) held that Where Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of\ncontract/subcontract income but failed to add interest income shown in books as\nother income, subsequently, on basis of audit objection, Assessing Officer was\njustified in invoking section 147/148 and reassessing 'interest income\nHon'ble Supreme Court

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

viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India. Explanation.—For the purposes

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.”

68,81,546/- and shown long term capital gain of Rs.5,39,67,684/- and claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs.5,39,67,384/-. The AO noted that the sale of agricultural lands at Muhana, Sanganer have been made on 06/02/2013 and further agricultural lands purchased on 28/08/2014 at Mauja Shiekpur, Fatehabad. Thus, it was noted by the AO that

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)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will

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)

viii) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the provision of section 115BBE appeared to be in the nature of compensatory provisions applicable to incomes, which were not recorded or correctly recorded at the first place but disclosed subsequently in the returns filed u/s 153A of the Act and therefore I find that the AO was justified

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)

viii) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the provision of section 115BBE appeared to be in the nature of compensatory provisions applicable to incomes, which were not recorded or correctly recorded at the first place but disclosed subsequently in the returns filed u/s 153A of the Act and therefore I find that the AO was justified

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

viii) ITAT Visakhapatnam in the case of 3F Industries Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Andhra Pradesh I.T.A. No.54/Viz/2019 Dated: 15-12-2022 2022 (12) TMI 846 ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. (Case law Paper Book page 64-70) TP Adjustment-provisions of section 92BA(i) relating to expenditure referred in section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

viii) ITAT Visakhapatnam in the case of 3F Industries Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Andhra Pradesh I.T.A. No.54/Viz/2019 Dated: 15-12-2022 2022 (12) TMI 846 ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. (Case law Paper Book page 64-70) TP Adjustment-provisions of section 92BA(i) relating to expenditure referred in section

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

section 14A(1), deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

56 (All) opined as under: Case Law paper Book page 217-219 “when the assessee-company had given an explanation which was reasonable, the IT authorities could have been entitled to treat the sum of ₹ 32,000 as income from undisclosed sources only if there was some other material from which such inference could have been drawn. No other material

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

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

56, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122001. 2. That a Survey u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out by Income Tax Department officials on 28.08.2018 at the business premises of assessee. That the statement of appellant is recorded 2 times. 1st statement was 3. recorded on 28.08.2018 (i.e. during survey) and second statement was recorded on 04.09.2018 (i.e. Post Survey

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 145(3), otherwise she could have invoked the same. Thus cold and hot breath cannot blow together. 15. Addition made without bringing any cogent material on record; Simultaneously Ld. AO could not bring any cogent material in support of his allegation that such founded Cash of Rs. 1,78,08,630/- is Unexplained Income, except suspicion for that

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

2,00,00,000/- in total income of the assessee u/s 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