M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

9 of the income tax act. In absence of any business connection, the income is not chargeable to tax under section 5 of the income tax act of the non-resident foreign agents. Thereafter, the natural consequences are that on such payment assessee is not obliged to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the income

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

9-11-2016 to 15-11-2016 97-98 2,38,850 Total Sales of Cheja Stone in Cash 2,59,89,915 2. Fire Wood Cash sale 01-04-2016 to 31-10-2016 61-64 18,81,000 24 Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3. Steel Scrap

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)

Section 44AB of the Income Tax 9 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur Act, 1961. In the Audit, there were no adverse remarks of the Auditor and the Auditor found the underlying evidences, substantiating the transactions recorded in the books of accounts, to be adequate and reasonable. 4.3. Cash sales in the jewellery trade is a normal

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

1,20,12,101 on 08.11.2016\nas advances which resulted in increase in cash balance of the assessee. It is\nsubmitted that on the eve of sudden announcement of demonetization i.e.,\n08.11.2016, there was huge rush for buying of gold. The assessee took the\nsame as business opportunity and took advances for selling the gold bars. The\nassessee made

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)

1,09,76,250 and income tax has been deposited on such income. Hence, Section 68 per se cannot be invoked in this case.Provisions of Section 68 can only be invoked in cases where an assessee is unable to explain the source of a particular receipt to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. These provisions have no application

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

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)

vii) Further in regard to the contention of the appellant that the provisions of section 115BBE have been invoked without any opportunity provided by the AO, it is held that the CIT(A) holds concurrent jurisdiction with that of the AO. Due opportunity has been provided to the appellant by me on this issue, in compliance to which

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)

vii) Further in regard to the contention of the appellant that the provisions of section 115BBE have been invoked without any opportunity provided by the AO, it is held that the CIT(A) holds concurrent jurisdiction with that of the AO. Due opportunity has been provided to the appellant by me on this issue, in compliance to which

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice dated\n21.12.2018 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under section\n271AAB(1)(a)/271AAB(1)(c) should not be initiated against the assessee. Subsequently,\nthe Assessing Officer has imposed penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of Rs. 33,00,000/- vide\npenalty order

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

VII) of loans taken and repaid respectively which is part of Form 3CD of Tax Audit Report already in possession and records of the Income Tax department for the AY under consideration. D. Because the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in not allowing the application filed by the Appellant under Rule 46A for taking additional evidence in the form

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

9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding the regular provisions for assessment/ reassessment contained in the IT Act, where search is conducted under Section 132 or requisition is made under Section 132A on or after 31 / 5 / 2003 in the case of any person, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person requiring

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

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 & 6 M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd., Jaipur. 69/JP/2015 and 71/JP/2016 and the observations of the Tribunal in para 7 are as under :- “7. We have heard the ld AR as well as the ld CIT DR and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that this issue of liability of the assessee to deduct

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

68 of the Act on account of share premium received by the assessee company. 3. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and also raised an objection against the validity of the assessment for want of notice U/s 143(2) of the Act issued by the second A.O. i.e. ITO, ward (4), Bhilwara

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)

1,63,20,000/- in its bank account and the assessee could not explain the source of part of the cash deposits in the bank account, therefore, it establishes that the assessee violates the provisions of section 110 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. In view of the above discussed facts as well as provisions

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

68,90,955/- 113 22 2007-08 (1,10,85,390) 96,08,164/- &117 6,000/- 2,06,57,878/- 95,72,490/- 121&126 27 2008-09 (1,36,88,648) 1,09,52,068/- 9,738/- 2,51,64,779/- 1,14,76,130/- 129&133 32 2009-10 (1,66,00,101) 1

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

68,90,955/- 113 22 2007-08 (1,10,85,390) 96,08,164/- &117 6,000/- 2,06,57,878/- 95,72,490/- 121&126 27 2008-09 (1,36,88,648) 1,09,52,068/- 9,738/- 2,51,64,779/- 1,14,76,130/- 129&133 32 2009-10 (1,66,00,101) 1

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

68,90,955/- 113 22 2007-08 (1,10,85,390) 96,08,164/- &117 6,000/- 2,06,57,878/- 95,72,490/- 121&126 27 2008-09 (1,36,88,648) 1,09,52,068/- 9,738/- 2,51,64,779/- 1,14,76,130/- 129&133 32 2009-10 (1,66,00,101) 1

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

vii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 481 /JP/2017 for AY 2009-10, wherein the appeal of the revenue on the same issue was dismissed. Further, the above judgement was followed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur