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

1,73,56,000/- found credits into the cash book\nwas considered as unexplained cash credits as per provision of section 68

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,040/-. Hence, the pleading on the ground of equity also fails. 5.7 Thus though surrender was during the search in course of statements u/s 132(4), the disclosure u/s 132(4), by itself cannot redeem the appellant from deeming provisions of the explanation 5A to section 271(1)( c) of the Act. Factually speaking the statement

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

68 of the Act. The Tribunal had applied the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in T.V. Sundariam Iyengar &Sons's case (supra) where the amount which was initially of capital nature but had changed its character to be of revenue nature, it was treated to be taxable income of the assessee. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

68,088/- being\ndisallowances out of certain expenses claimed. The assessee firm filed an\nappeal against the said order. Thereafter Ld. A.O. issued a notice u/s 154 dated\n10-7-2017 on the ground that assessee was allowed set off of brought forward\nunabsorbed depreciation of Rs.21,13,949/- of A.Y. 2001-02 & earlier years which\nwas irregular

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

1% of sale shown as under:- Steel Scrap sale Fire wood Scrap sale Total TCS 23 Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 45,73,500 18,81,000 64,54,500 64550 It is admitted fact that each transaction should be analyzed with the point of view of the businessman, generally prevailing practice in the trade

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 and taxed the same in terms of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1ST Appeal The assessment order so passed by assessment unit was appealed before the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC who also sustained the addition made by ld. AO. Submissions :- The appellant wishes to withdraw ground nos. 1, 5,6,7 and 8 as taken

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

73,250/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 22.09.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee. Notices u/s 142(1) along with query letter dated 05.10.2019, 24.11.2019, 14.12.2019 were issued and duly

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)

73,000/- . It is surprised to note that the cash deposit in this account during financial year 2015-16 was NIL. Thus, the assessee has admitted 2012.23% increase in cash deposit from cash deposited during financial year. In order to verify source of cash deposit major cash receipts entries from the cash book during financial year 2016-17 for which

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

1 April 2018 that where such donations are made with specific directions to form part of corpus of the recipient entity, it will not be considered as application of income in the hands of the donor entity. However, the donations with no specific directions to the recipient entity continue to be eligible as application of income. 48. In the instant

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

68,40,099/-. Therefore, the initiation and imposing of penalty proceedings is wrong, bad in law, invalid and void ab initio. 17. It was submitted that it is a settled law position on the issue that the notice u/s 271(1)(c) should be specific on imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 i.e. concealed particulars

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

68,40,099/-. Therefore, the initiation and imposing of penalty proceedings is wrong, bad in law, invalid and void ab initio. 17. It was submitted that it is a settled law position on the issue that the notice u/s 271(1)(c) should be specific on imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 i.e. concealed particulars

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

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

73,241/- levied by the AO @ 30% of the undisclosed income under clause 1(c) of section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act to Rs. 1,10,57,747/- under clause 1(a) of that section despite the fact that manner of earning of undisclosed income was not disclosed by the assessee. 2. Before

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

section with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

1 / 7 same was undisclosed income of the assessee which was surrendered by the assessee during the survey action the same was to be assessed under the provisions of ss. 68 to 69D. The above reasoning of the survey party is not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, there is no justification on the part

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHRI RAJLAXMI DENIM, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

section 153A(1) of the Income tax Act. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, it was not incumbent upon the CIT(A) to decide the merits of the additions to the total income of the assessee made by the assessing officer despite holding the assessment u/s 143(3) to be invalid

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

73,57,124/- on various dates of FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13, which is\nin violation to the section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sh. Ashwini Gupta\nhas also made repayment of Rs.3,81,68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

73,57,124/- on various dates of FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13, which is\nin violation to the section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sh. Ashwini Gupta\nhas also made repayment of Rs.3,81,68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

73,57,124/- on various dates of FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13, which is\nin violation to the section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sh. Ashwini Gupta\nhas also made repayment of Rs.3,81,68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

73,57,124/- on various dates of FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13, which is\nin violation to the section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sh. Ashwini Gupta\nhas also made repayment of Rs.3,81,68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also