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)

10(37) is not applicable in this case. Further, AR of the assessee company has taken a plea that 15 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. the compensation received is exempt in accordance with the RFCTLAAR Act, is also not acceptable. In the case under reference land

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)

10(37) is not applicable in this case. Further, AR of the assessee company has taken a plea that 15 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. the compensation received is exempt in accordance with the RFCTLAAR Act, is also not acceptable. In the case under reference land

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)

10(37) is not applicable in this case. Further, AR of the assessee company has taken a plea that 15 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. the compensation received is exempt in accordance with the RFCTLAAR Act, is also not acceptable. In the case under reference land

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

transfer and Rs. 4.25 lacs through cheque rejection. On going through return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2018-19, it is noticed that income from above transaction has not been included in ITR. The ld. AO noted that in the assessment proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act assessee failed to provide true and correct information / material

SHRI RUPAL JAIAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

transferred to the DEMAT account on 24.06.2013 and shares were sold by the assessee and Share Transaction Tax were also duly paid at the time of sale of shares. (Copy of DEMAT account and Transaction Statement is enclosed herewith at Pg. 43-44 of Paper Book) vii. That Id. Assessing officer on the basis of search conducted by the investigation

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)

price', is ab- initio void as per the provisions of sec.23of the Contracts Act, 1872 and thus non- est in the eyes of law. Hence, such SBNs cannot be treated as having arisen out of a contract for sale…….” It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT as under:- “70. From the reading of the above notification, it is abundantly

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)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

section 2(24)(x) of the Act 2. Perusal of the record also shows that one of the main reasons for selection of the case for complete scrutiny was "large outwards remittances by the assessee and to check as to whether appropriate 9 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT provisions of withdrawal have been complied with." This was basically for examining

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

xv) Referring to the above judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32 (2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib) as under- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. NASH FASHION(INDIA) LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

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

price of the equipment purchased directly by the done institution. The first scenario will not qualify for deduction as what has been donated is property in kind, however the second scenario will quality for deduction as what has been spent and transferred is sum of money and not property in kind. In our view, the facts of the present scenario

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

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

price of the equipment purchased directly by the done institution. The first scenario will not qualify for deduction as what has been donated is property in kind, however the second scenario will quality for deduction as what has been spent and transferred is sum of money and not property in kind. In our view, the facts of the present scenario

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

xv) Referring to the above judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held by the\nHon'ble ITAT in the case of Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32\n(2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib) as under-\n\"3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge

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

xv) Referring to the above judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held by the\nHon'ble ITAT in the case of Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32\n(2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib) as under-\n\"3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

price of the equipment purchased directly\nby the done institution. The first scenario will not qualify for deduction as what\nhas been donated is property in kind, however the second scenario will qualify\nfor deduction as what has been spent and transferred is sum of money and not\nproperty in kind. In our view, the facts of the present scenario

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

pricing etc. and item quantitative control on staff. In the tax audit report no quantitative details are mentioned. This list is in the nature of undisclosed records or incriminating material unearthed during the survey. (xiv) The appellant has claimed that the valuation should have been by the official valuers for each item separately of the taking into consideration the exact

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

2, 3 , 6, 20 & 26. However, the perusal of the statement of Shri Nikhil Kr.Goyal reveals that in the entire statement, Shri Nikhil Kumar Goyal has no where alleged that he made any unaccounted purchases from the assessee. He also expressed his inability in furnishing the addresses of the persons appearing in the loose papers on the ground that these

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer by Vinayak overseas and they were absconding. The Tribunal only on the statement of M.P. Sharma who was power of attorney holder of Vinayak overseas has given the finding. In our view, the finding is perverse. The view taken by the Tribunal is required to be reversed. 8. Apart from that merely voucher of the import export chanals

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

transferred, they were still lying in the name of assessee much after the sale to M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. (The impugned shares ceased to exist in the demat account of the assessee post sale) The only positive aspect was the receipt of sale consideration through cheques. It was under these circumstances that the Hon’ble Tribunal made the observations quoted