PAWAN MEENA,PLOT NO.91 vs. ITO, WD2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

deposited into bank account during demonetization was not out of cash withdrawal made from the bank account on earlier occasion or from gift from father . Without prejudice to above & merely for the sake of academic purposes , it is submitted that the ld AO merely on the basis of affidavit of the creditor considered the amount received from Mr. Yadav

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

cash deposits. 13. It is reiterated that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has maintained books of account and as per cash book, cash receipts against student fees are supported by necessary service tax invoices. There is a fundamental mistake in assessing the business receipt as unexplained money taxable

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

deposited being from regular cash sales and available cash\nbalance of the assessee, the penalty so initiated deserves to be set aside.\n9.\nThat the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any\nof the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.\"\n5\nITA No. 1522/JP/2024\nPradeep Sharma

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

cash deposits and withdrawals, Further, the rental income is received from the corporate entity viz. L&T Ltd. All the receipts are made through Bank and TDS

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

deposited in Bank Accounts(s). b) Sale bills/sales register of the basis of which cash was generated. c) Purchase bills/purchase register for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17. d) Stock Register for the F.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17, e) Bank Statement for the year under consideration. 3.3. The submission justifying the cash by the assessee was not acceptable on the following

GIRDHARI LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

cash deposit chart for A.Y 2017-18 and copy of VAT return only. He mentioned that 4 Girdhari Lal Meena vs. ITO interest amount of Rs. 64,379/- paid to M/s. Toyota Finance on which TDS

SETH BADRI PRASAD UMMEDI DEVI PAROPKARI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS 35 Therefore all this fixed deposit which has been made during the year is renewal of earthier period feed deposit and no new feed deposit has been made during the year 3.6 Since no new fixed deposit has been made during the year so addition in income on account of new fixed deposit made tuning the year is wrong

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the\ncross objection of the assessee are allowed

cash deposit; therefore, the same amount was\nadded to the total income of the assessee company treated as unexplained\nmoney as per provision of section 69A of the Act.\n13\nITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred\nan appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Apropos

PRATIMA PANWAR,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 3(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

TDS certificates and copy of statement Bank account, cash book maintained by the assessee. d) The ITR shows the source of income of the assessee as salary from Shyamlal Panwar Anandidevi Memorial Charitable Trust and MJRP University. 3 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO e) During the demonetization period assessee has deposited

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. INDU RATHORE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

TDS was deducted on commission income. Point wise replies along with documents were submitted to the AO as per 4.3. the notice issued to the assessee. The assessee was acting as an agent of the ITZ. The activities under taken by the assessee on behalf of ITZ is remittance service. The assessee can collect the cash of the entities appearing

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

deposited cannot be accepted to be representing the cash-in-hand on 08.11.2016 due to the above 13 AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS (P) LTD VS ACIT, KOTA reasons. Hence in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee glumly failed to justify the genuineness of the cash on hand viz a vizits use for payment of service

GOVIND SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

cash deposit in bank accounts during two months of demonetization only and hence the analysis of commission receipt during these two months is as under :- SN Name of Party Commission TDS

SHREY ASSOCIATES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

26. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, finding merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee as regards the only challenge to the addition of Rs

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM, SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

cash book to explain the nature and source of acquisition of SBN currency notes as on 09.11.2016, and as such the authorities below erred in arriving at the conclusion that the assessee had failed to discharge onus to explain the nature and source of acquisition of SBN currency notes of Rs. 11,50,000/-. 19. In the written submission, Learned

PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

deposit PAN & on payment of TDS the A.O. 01.04.16 19. Please furnish the details of cash deposits during demonetization period

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

deposited during the assessment year. iii) New loans were taken while cash Yes, examined. Taking or repaying was available on the date of loan business loans is a matter of prudence of businessmen. All loan transactions have taken place thru bank and duly signed confirmations of lendersalongwith address, PAN etc. were submitted to AO. TDS

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-.\nHowever, in the assessment order ultimately passed, no addition on account of such\nalleged deposits was made. Instead, the AO proceeded to disallow deduction u/s 80P\namounting to ₹14,38,852/-, solely on the ground that no return of income had been filed\nand that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-.\nHowever, in the assessment order ultimately passed, no addition on account of such\nalleged deposits was made. Instead, the AO proceeded to disallow deduction u/s 80P\namounting to ₹14,38,852/-, solely on the ground that no return of income had been filed\nand that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-.\nHowever, in the assessment order ultimately passed, no addition on account of such\nalleged deposits was made. Instead, the AO proceeded to disallow deduction u/s 80P\namounting to ₹14,38,852/-, solely on the ground that no return of income had been filed\nand that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including