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

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

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

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

BALVEER SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

transfer from ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur to ITO, Ward-\n3(3), Jaipur in compliance to order u/s 127 of the I.T. Act of Pr.\nCommissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur. Due to change of incumbent, a\nnotice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 17.06.2019 &\n10.07.2019, which was served through postal authorities and also on\nITBA

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