DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. 9 DCIT Vs Rajendra Agarwal Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

section 115BBE of the Act. 4.1. Finding of ld.AO: - The findings and observations of ld. AO are at page 2 to 23 of the assessment order. In view of the observations and findings the ld. AO alleged that the sales made, amount realized from debtors and advances received from customers, which was utilized to deposit in bank account

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

section 5A is also a rebuttable presumption and the bonafide of the explanation so submitted by the assessee needs to be examined before a final view is taken on the levy of penalty. In the instant case, the Assessing officer in his assessment order states that the cost of construction estimated by the assessee’s valuation officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

68 of the income tax act 1961. Ground-2. While granting relief, the learned CIT Appeal has erred by ignoring the statement of Sri Amit Gidra, the main accountant of the group, as detailed in para 10 of the assessment order, wherefrom it is clear that the assessee has been indulging in bogus transactions where actual purchase/sale did not take

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

68 of the income tax act 1961. Ground-2. While granting relief, the learned CIT Appeal has erred by ignoring the statement of Sri Amit Gidra, the main accountant of the group, as detailed in para 10 of the assessment order, wherefrom it is clear that the assessee has been indulging in bogus transactions where actual purchase/sale did not take

M/S. P.S. ASSOCIATES,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

68,000/- 2008-09 1,45,000/- Total 11,43,000/- In response to the notice issued under section 153A of the Act for these three assessment years, the assessee filed its return of income on 13th March 2014 and offered the undisclosed income surrendered during the post search enquiry for these three years. The AO while completing

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. Brief facts pertaining to this ground of appeal are that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,16,00,000/- in its bank account No. 660520110000367 with Bank of India during the demonetization period in SBN of Rs.1000/- and 500/- rupee notes. The immediate source of such cash was explained as the cash

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. Brief facts pertaining to this ground of appeal are that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,16,00,000/- in its bank account No. 660520110000367 with Bank of India during the demonetization period in SBN of Rs.1000/- and 500/- rupee notes. The immediate source of such cash was explained as the cash

M/S BANSAL OIL MILL LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section provides that if any sum is found credited in the books of accounts, then the assessee has to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the party from whom amount is received and the genuineness of the transaction. In the present case, the assessee has not only proved the identity of the party from whom the loan has been

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

5A to section 271(1)(c) is a deeming provision and subject to fulfilling the requisite conditions, it deems the assessee to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income similar to what has been provided in clause (c) to section 271(1) of the Act. In search cases as well

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

5A to section 271(1)(c) is a deeming provision and subject to fulfilling the requisite conditions, it deems the assessee to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income similar to what has been provided in clause (c) to section 271(1) of the Act. In search cases as well

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

68 by alleging that assessee has obtained\naccommodation entry of share application during the year under consideration.\nIt was submitted by the Id. AR that though the appellant vide letter dated\n07.10.2019 has filed the objections for issuance of notice u/s 148 after the receipt\nof reasons but the Id. AO has not passed any speaking order rejecting the\nobjections

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) are not applicable to additional income offered to tax on suo moto basis in return filed u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 3. The brief facts of the case

ARVIND KUMAR NEHRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Section 148A(d) of the Act.\nIt is ordered accordingly.\"\nHere also the same position and liable to be quashed the assessment order. Further the\ncase of the assessee is on much strong footing because in the notice the time is given only\n3.00 hour as the notice digitally signed at 11.06 AM on dt. 17.12.2019 and the time

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

5A of the Land Acquisition Act to the state Government on 26.11.2007. Subsequently notification under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published on 23.01.2008 and on 21.06.2008 to 26.06.2008. Notice u/s 9(1) was published. • Thereafter the State Government vide letter dated 24.06.2010 decided the award ex-parte of the lands which were acquired for Special Economic Zone

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

5A of the Land Acquisition Act to the state Government on 26.11.2007. Subsequently notification under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published on 23.01.2008 and on 21.06.2008 to 26.06.2008. Notice u/s 9(1) was published. • Thereafter the State Government vide letter dated 24.06.2010 decided the award ex-parte of the lands which were acquired for Special Economic Zone

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

5A of the Land Acquisition Act to the state Government on 26.11.2007. Subsequently notification under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published on 23.01.2008 and on 21.06.2008 to 26.06.2008. Notice u/s 9(1) was published. • Thereafter the State Government vide letter dated 24.06.2010 decided the award ex-parte of the lands which were acquired for Special Economic Zone

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

5A of the Land Acquisition Act to the state Government on 26.11.2007. Subsequently notification under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published on 23.01.2008 and on 21.06.2008 to 26.06.2008. Notice u/s 9(1) was published. • Thereafter the State Government vide letter dated 24.06.2010 decided the award ex-parte of the lands which were acquired for Special Economic Zone