AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original return, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of maximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no action could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original return, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of maximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no action could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

80C of Rs. 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

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description of the document & Page No. 1. 3/1 Sale agreement-cum-receipt of truck, showing purchase of truck for Rs.8

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description of the document & Page No. 1. 3/1 Sale agreement-cum-receipt of truck, showing purchase of truck for Rs.8

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description of the document & Page No. 1. 3/1 Sale agreement-cum-receipt of truck, showing purchase of truck for Rs.8

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been\ninventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A-\n28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated\nbelow -\nS.No.\nExhibit No.\n& Page No.\nDescription of the document\n1.\n3/1\nSale agreement-cum-receipt of truck, showing purchase of\ntruck for Rs.8

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been\ninventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A-\n28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated\nbelow -\nS.No.\nExhibit No.\n& Page No.\nDescription of the document\n1.\n3/1\nSale agreement-cum-receipt of truck, showing purchase of\ntruck for Rs.8

NEHA WADHWA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A).

section 80C of the Act), the Assessing Officer categorically stated the assessee could submit documentary evidence of payment of premium with LIC for Rs.40,704/- only against the claim of deduction of Rs.82,542/-. I find no reason to interfere with the denial of deduction for Rs.41,838/-, as mentioned in the assessment order. 5. The appeal is disposed

BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

68. In this regard it is submitted : “Addition u/s 69 of the IT Act 1961 Rs. 62,89,400/- Contra 3608520 Receipt 2638500 Opening Balance 360000 Rs. 36,08,500/- was withdrawn and again deposited, which is apparent from the banks statement the same was filed with the Assessing Authority. There was opening balance Rs. 360000/- as cash in hand

ITO, JAIPUR vs. BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

68. In this regard it is submitted : “Addition u/s 69 of the IT Act 1961 Rs. 62,89,400/- Contra 3608520 Receipt 2638500 Opening Balance 360000 Rs. 36,08,500/- was withdrawn and again deposited, which is apparent from the banks statement the same was filed with the Assessing Authority. There was opening balance Rs. 360000/- as cash in hand

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed.’’ We further take reference of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the ld.CIT(A) at para 13.2 has observed as under:- ‘’13.2 I have perused the facts of the case and assessment order. As per assessment order assessee

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove

Section 68 of the\nI.T Act, 1961 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed.\"\nWe further take reference of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment\nyear 2012-13 wherein the Id.CIT(A) at para 13.2 has observed as under:-\n\"13.2\nI have perused the facts of the case and assessment order. As per\nassessment order

SHAILENDRA GARG,SIRGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed.’’ We further take reference of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the ld.CIT(A) at para 13.2 has observed as under:- ‘’13.2 I have perused the facts of the case and assessment order. As per assessment order assessee

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed.’’ We further take reference of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the ld.CIT(A) at para 13.2 has observed as under:- ‘’13.2 I have perused the facts of the case and assessment order. As per assessment order assessee

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical

section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed." We further take reference of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the Id.CIT(A) at para 13.2 has observed as under:- "13.2 I have perused the facts of the case and assessment order. As per assessment order assessee

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed.’’ We further take reference of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the ld.CIT(A) at para 13.2 has observed as under:- ‘’13.2 I have perused the facts of the case and assessment order. As per assessment order assessee

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed.’’ We further take reference of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the ld.CIT(A) at para 13.2 has observed as under:- ‘’13.2 I have perused the facts of the case and assessment order. As per assessment order assessee