INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

deposit in bank without there been supporting cash sales. It is submitted that in such circumstances when the objection raised by the learned AO is fully met by the assessee with documentary evidence(s) then the assessment proceeding should have been dropped in the normal course but perhaps the learned AO made it a matter of prestige to make additions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

cash deposits u/s 68; 5. Pointed out certain discrepancies in Balance Sheet in debtors and creditors, Bank Balances and has worked out the difference of Rs.33,11,308/- in Balance Sheet at page 44 of Assessment order, which 44 ITO vs. Vasudev Hemrajani was actually completely reconciled and were also submitted during the course of assessment proceedings; On the above

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

prices of gold were doubling or tripling after the next day or the jewellery would not have been available on the next day. The rush was at the Jewellers apparently due to the reason that some people wanted to buy jewellery in cash using the demonetised currency which they could not have deposited in the bank account as that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the\ncross objection of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits are duly recorded in\nthe books of account and are made on the receipt of coaching fee from\nstudents. In these circumstances, it is not a case where such money was not\nrecorded in the books and as such, it is evident that the Id. AO has not made\nout a case calling for an addition

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer of property in the goods, and a price. 'Price' was further defined under section 2(10) of the Sale of Goods Act to mean 'money consideration for a sale ofgoods. Thus, in a contract of sale, payment of price in money is an essential part. The word 'money' has not been defined under the said Act, but the most

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

deposits fixed with bank, the source of which in turn is sale of investments. The interest expenditure on the other hand has been incurred on borrowers utilized for investment in acquisition of shares of NDTV Ltd. Thus, apparently the assessee has failed to discharge the onus which lays upon it to show that incurring of expenditure has resulted in corresponding

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

cash. In his reply to question No. 10,\nthe assessee further stated that he was to get only Rs.20 per Sq.yd as brokerage.\nThe reply of the assessee is categorical and very specific. In his statement, he has\nnowhere stated that he got the on-money amount. In view of this, the addition of\nRs.15,76,542/- is totally uncalled

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

cash. In his reply to question No. 10,\nthe assessee further stated that he was to get only Rs.20 per Sq.yd as brokerage.\nThe reply of the assessee is categorical and very specific. In his statement, he has\nnowhere stated that he got the on-money amount. In view of this, the addition of\nRs.15,76,542/- is totally uncalled

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

deposit of TDS being compensatory in nature, and not penal in nature and hence not required to be disallowed under section 37(1) of the IT Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee by decision of Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in appellant’s own case

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

deposit of TDS being compensatory in nature, and not penal in nature and hence not required to be disallowed under section 37(1) of the IT Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee by decision of Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in\nappellant’s own case

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

deposit of TDS being compensatory in nature, and not penal in nature and hence not required to be disallowed under section 37(1) of the IT Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee by decision of Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. appellant

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

deposit of TDS being compensatory in nature, and not penal in nature and hence not required to be disallowed under section 37(1) of the IT Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee by decision of Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. appellant

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

cash deposit. 3 ITA 04/JP/2021_ Shree Cement Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 above, the Ld. Pr. CIT was not justified and grossly erred in directing AO to examine the issue of details of ITNS. 12. That the appellant craves leave

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

deposit of TDS being\ncompensatory in nature, and not penal in nature and hence not\nrequired to be disallowed under section 37(1) of the IT Act. The Ld.\nAR of the assessee also submitted that the said issue is covered in\nfavour of the assessee by decision of Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in\nappellant’s own case

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

transferred to NFAC. The NFAC has passed the Exparty order on\ndt.29.11.2023, despite the Ws and reply filed by the assessee. The order was received on\nportal on dt. 29.11.2023 and on email, which was not served upon the assessee physical.\nHowever as per date of order the appeal was to be filed on or before 28.01.2024 but the\nsame

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

deposit of Employee’s contribution to Provident Fund u/s 36(1)(va) of Rs. 1,58,85,223/- while computing Total Income. Resultantly, ground no 1 as raised by the appellant is therefore allowed. 13. Ground no 2 relates to disallowance of Health and Education cess while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB. The brief facts related to the issue

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

cash deposits in three (0519010100000772, 0519010100000665 and 051900100000698) maintained in J&K Bank, Ghaziabad. These three accounts were in the name of M/s Shiva Trading Company Prop Pankaj Kumar M/s Diyanshi Sales Corporation Prop VikashRathi and M/s Shyama Trading Company Prop Ghanshyam respectively. With this information copy of assessment order in the case of Rahul Choudhary, Rankaj Kumar, VikashRathi&Ghanshyam

SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

deposited out of advance received. The assessee had also been entered into 15 different agreements on different dates entitling 25 residential plots with the real owners of the said plots @ Rs.10000/- per Square Yards, for sale and amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs was paid in Sh. Madan Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO advance, in cash for every plot, and thus, total