ACIT, C.C. -4, JAIPUR vs. MAVERICK COMMODITY BROKERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

price of the said company which led to returns of 491% for the Appellant, was completely unjustified. Pertinently, the EPS of the said company was Rs. 0.01/- as in March 2016, it was Rs. - 0.01/- as in March 2015 and -0.48/- as in March 2014. Similarly, the other financials parameters of the said company cannot justify the price in excess

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

price of the said company which led to returns of 491% for the Appellant, was completely unjustified. Pertinently, the EPS of the said company was Rs. 0.01/- as in March 2016, it was Rs. - 0.01/- as in March 2015 and -0.48/- as in March 2014. Similarly, the other financials parameters of the said company cannot justify the price in excess

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

price of the said company which led to returns of 491% for the Appellant, was completely unjustified. Pertinently, the EPS of the said company was Rs. 0.01/- as in March 2016, it was Rs. - 0.01/- as in March 2015 and -0.48/- as in March 2014. Similarly, the other financials parameters of the said company cannot justify the price in excess

ACIT, CC-4, , JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANSHUL JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

price of the said company which led to returns of 491% for the Appellant, was completely unjustified. Pertinently, the EPS of the said company was Rs. 0.01/- as in March 2016, it was Rs. - 0.01/- as in March 2015 and -0.48/- as in March 2014. Similarly, the other financials parameters of the said company cannot justify the price in excess

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

801\n(SC)/([1995] 125 CTR 124 (SC)[28-03-1995) held as under-\n\"It is, no doubt, true that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be\ntaxed as income, the burden lies on the department to prove that it is\nwithin the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

price whereas the present appellant had purchased the land above DLC rate Case 6: K.P. Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 The case is in favour of assessee as is evident from the following:- “Since literal interpretation of section 52(2) leads to manifestly unreasonable and absurd consequences, the same should be construed having regard to the object and purpose

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.

Transfer Pricing proceedings went on for a period of 30 months by 3 different AOs. During this period, four notices u/s 142(1) were issued by the A.O. dated 04-12-2015 raising 12 queries (PB Pg. No. 257), 04-01-2016 raising 29 queries (PB Pg. No. 17-20), 09-11-2016 raising 10 queries

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

price is also not verifiable for books of accounts, meaning thereby the details mentioned in the seized documents cannot be corroborated with the transactions recorded in the regular books of accounts. e) The assessee company recognizes the sale of flats only when the flats are fully ready to be sold and title is transferred to the purchaser and the possession

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

801 SC, and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 SC. Ground-5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the factual survey/inquiry report as reported in the assessment order. Ground-6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

801 SC, and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 SC. Ground-5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the factual survey/inquiry report as reported in the assessment order. Ground-6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off line sale to save STT The beneficiary (an Individual) holds the share for one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is exempt under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act, 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

transfer of long-term capital asset being equity shares of company shall not be form part of total income if securities transaction tax is applicable on such transaction. In the present case, the share in which Appellant was invested were long term capital assets and it is clearly evident from the contract notes that securities transaction tax was charged

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI CHANDRA SURANA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Auditor. Any Stock Register Whatsoever Was Not Furnished During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings To Verify The Quantitative Sale Made During The Year Whether The Item Shown By The Assessee As Sold Was Actually In Stock Of The Assessee Or Not & Quantity & Value Of The Sale Shown Remains Unverified. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Ignoring The Vital Fact.

801 (SC) 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. AR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and filed the filed the following written submission. Submission of assessee As ground NO., 1 to 3 of the department are interlinked hence a combined submission is made hereunder:- The assessee reiterates its submission made before CIT(A) as under

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

801 (SC)] held that claims contrary to human probabilities and devoid of credible evidence must be rejected. 3.3. Assessee's Team of Accountants and Professional Background 1. Professional Background of the Assessee: • The appellant, a qualified civil engineer with over 35 years of experience, is not unfamiliar with financial and tax matters. 2. Access to Professional Resources: • The appellant

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

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to interfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority." The onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the interest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively only for the purpose of making investments which have

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

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively\nonly for the purpose of making investments which have

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

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively\nonly for the purpose of making investments which have

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

section 65A & 65B of the \nEvidence Act has not been followed by the assessing authority. However the \ncontention of the appellant is mere based on presumptions and assumptions. \nFurther the appellant has stated that the learned AO has not mentioned in the \nsaid section that steps were taken in this regard. However there is no requirement \nto record such satisfaction