HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

920/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as its Income from other sources. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld.CIT (A) sustained the action of the AO by holding that (1) The Explanation (a)(ii) of sub section (viib) of section

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

transfer\npricing orders wherein downward adjustments were made to the price\npaid for the equipment imported by the AE. The Assessee had filed an\nappeal to this Tribunal against the appellate order for Assessment Year\n2013-14 (arising from the assessment under Section 143(3) and the TPO\norder). This appeal was disposed in RKM POWERGEN PRIVATE\nLIMITED

VIRENDRA PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer of funds was demonstrated by Id. AO which facts were not in\ndispute. In the present case, the lower authorities have arbitrarily presumed—\nwithout any direct or indirect evidence, basis, or corroboration—that a vague and\nrough entry found during search pertains specifically to the assessee. Such\ninference is wholly unjustified and devoid of any factual or legal basis

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

transfer of ownership and management of the assessee company, would be handled by the erstwhile management group. It was further submitted that Sh. Jagdish Narain Khandelwal an employee of the erstwhile management who looks after the income tax matters collected the duly filled Form No. 36 and other papers from the Counsel and he handed over the said papers

A DAGA ROYAL ARTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

920/- were made in cheque to various persons, and Rs. 8,15,700/- and Rs. 6,84,296/- were paid in cash towards stamp duty and Court fee respectively. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the purchases made in cash should not be disallowed

PRABHA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -6 , JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Appeal Hearing.

920/- claiming exempt Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 21,48,870/- under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The return was processed under Smt. Prabha Agarwal, Jaipur. section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 24.03.2016 at declared income. Later on, information was received from Directorate of Investigation that an organized racket of generating

PRABHA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Appeal Hearing.

920/- claiming exempt Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 21,48,870/- under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The return was processed under Smt. Prabha Agarwal, Jaipur. section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 24.03.2016 at declared income. Later on, information was received from Directorate of Investigation that an organized racket of generating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

price variation was more than the range of thousands rupee per quintal per day. Various issues relating to stock movements as well as negative stock or excess closing stock raised arises mainly due to the reason that stock report made based on the impounded record by the ld. AO was on the basis of invoice date (which is actually also

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

transferred in his name in the register of EEL. In support of his claim notice also submitted the copy of relevant pages of register of EEL showing that his name was entered as a member in the register of EEL on January 15, 2011. Noticee also submit6ted the shareholding patterns filed by the company with BSE for the quarter ended

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

price escalation and making charges which in no case could be as high as applied by ld.AO at 24.14%. It is settled proposition of law M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT that once the books are rejected, only recourse available with an AO is to estimate the income. In that situation it is the duty of AO that such estimations should

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

price escalation and making charges which in no case could be as high as applied by ld.AO at 24.14%. It is settled proposition of law M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT that once the books are rejected, only recourse available with an AO is to estimate the income. In that situation it is the duty of AO that such estimations should

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

price escalation and making charges which in no case could be as high as applied by ld.AO at 24.14%. It is settled proposition of law M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT that once the books are rejected, only recourse available with an AO is to estimate the income. In that situation it is the duty of AO that such estimations should

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

price escalation and making charges which in no case could be as high as applied by ld.AO at 24.14%. It is settled proposition of law M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT that once the books are rejected, only recourse available with an AO is to estimate the income. In that situation it is the duty of AO that such estimations should

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

price escalation and making charges which in no case could be as high as applied by ld.AO at 24.14%. It is settled proposition of law M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT that once the books are rejected, only recourse available with an AO is to estimate the income. In that situation it is the duty of AO that such estimations should

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

price escalation and making charges which in no case could be as high as applied by ld.AO at 24.14%. It is settled proposition of law M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT that once the books are rejected, only recourse available with an AO is to estimate the income. In that situation it is the duty of AO that such estimations should

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

transferred via cheques or bank transfers, ensuring a transparent\naudit trail. Importantly, there were no outstanding balances associated\nwith these transactions at any point, indicating that loans were duly\nrepaid in subsequent years. This factor is pivotal in establishing the\ngenuneness of the transactions, as it reflects a legitimate business\npractice rather than an attempt to camouflage undisclosed income

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable