SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

unexplained money and hence, the addition ought to be made under section 69A of the Act.\n17. The assessee appellant for the detailed reasons given in the condonation application was not aware of the notice issued u/s. 263 hence, could not file reply to the same. However, the Id. PCIT considering the reply filed by the assessee appellant

RAMDAS SINGH TOMAR,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ramdas Singh Tomar M/s Om Sai Construction, Harikand Ka Pura Faraspura, Dholpur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT सुनवा

Unexplained moneys - (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee-NRI, filed return for relevant assessment year - Said return was accepted without

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Unexplained Share Application Money o During reassessment, the AO identified unexplained share application money amounting to ₹90,00,385/- under

RATIKA KUMBHAT,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

Unexplained moneys (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2020-21 - Assessing Officer issued on assessee-company a notice under section 148A(b) intimating

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

unexplained money and hence, the addition ought to be made under\nsection 69A of the Act.\n17. The assessee appellant for the detailed reasons given in the condonation\napplication was not aware of the notice issued u/s. 263 hence, could not file reply\nto the same. However, the Id. PCIT considering the reply filed by the assessee\nappellant

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

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

Unexplained money, arbitrarily. 3.1. That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.74,51,800/- made by ld. AO on the basis of some ledger copy alleged to have been found during the course of search conducted in some other case namely Veto Group. Appellant prays that assessee is not associated with Veto Group

UMA SHANKER SHARMA,VRINDAVAN, MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 2, ITO WD TWO, BHARATPUR

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

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

money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 and is deemed to be the income of the assessee for the AY 2012-13. 5 Uma Shanker Sharma vs.ITO 4. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After perusing the submissions of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

reassessment framework.\nIII. Assessee’s Failure to Justify Transactions\n1. Unexplained Share Application Money\n- During reassessment, the AO identified