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)

TDS was not deducted has been added in the computation of income. Thus, the assessee in support of the cash deposited submitted the cash book for the period of demonetization

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

TDS and since the assessee has not filed details of\nthe office rent of Rs.3,97,500/- same was added as income of the\nassessee.\n3.6 Ld. AO noticed that the assessee during the demonetization

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

BADRI NARAYAN MADHOLAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

TDS on interest of Rs\n13,177/.\n4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.\nCIT(A) authorities grossly erred in confirming the addition of\nRs.9,89,853/- under section 68 on account of unexplained cash\ndeposited in bank accounts during demonetization

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 &

demonetization period of Rs. 1,55,51,600/-out of total cash deposit; therefore, the same amount was added to the total income of the assessee company treated as unexplained money as per provision of section 69A of the Act. DCIT vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. 6. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before

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)

demonetization period. c) The jewellery items are too selective in nature no purchaser would buy the jewellery without making particular choices. It will be considered here that a persons will take around half an hour to buy jewellery of his/her choice from its hard earned money. In the case of the assessee he had make sales to 347 persons during

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)

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 as advance against property as against

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)

demonetization period on different dates ignoring the facts available on record and the detailed submissions made. The impugned addition so made being contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and contrary hence, the same kindly be deleted in full. 3.1 Rs.80,85,610/-: the ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS on payment of Rs. 1,04,35,000/- was also outside the scope of issue under limited scrutiny. The CBDT has issued instruction no. 15/2015 dated 29/12/2015 (CLPB 12 to 14), 05/2016 dated 14/07/2016 (CLPB 14 to 15) and dated 30/11/2017 (CLPB-49) on limited scrutiny matters. The crux of the instructions is summarized as under- i. The questionnaire

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

demonetization period of Rs.\n1,55,51,600/-out of total 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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), JAIPUR, HIGHCOURT CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. LATE VANDANA AGARWAL THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. NISHIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

demonetization period was withdrawn by her in April 2016 for the purpose of expenses related to the proposed Rokka/engagement ceremony of her daughter. In support of her claim the appellant has submitted a letter written by her to HDFC bank on 22.04.2016 stating the reason of the withdrawal of the said money. The relevant portion of the self-declaration given

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)

demonetization period. e). Contended that there are no evidences to make the addition of cash deposits and additions are driven by assumptions and surmises. 6.5 The above points raised by the appellant are addressed one by one in the subsequent part of the appeal order. a. It is clear from the assessment record that the proceedings are carried

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

demonetization period is added as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and resultantly addition of Rs. 70,02,127/- made to the income of the Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT assessee and taxed at the rate of 60 % as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. 4.5 The ld. AO stated that on 28.07.2018 a search and seizure

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

demonetization period is added as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and resultantly addition of Rs. 70,02,127/- made to the income of the Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT assessee and taxed at the rate of 60 % as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. 4.5 The ld. AO stated that on 28.07.2018 a search and seizure

KRYA VIKRAYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED DEOLI,DEOLI TONK vs. ITO TONK, TONK

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the AO is confirmed

Bench: Him.

demonetization and assessee has written-off its debtors and debited its cash book by equivalent amount of cash in SBN which ceased to be legal tender and which was later on utilized for meeting liabilities. By this way, the source of cash in its book cannot be said to be from explained sources in terms of section

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

G. N. BUILDEV PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, STATUTE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

demonetization. On this preposition I relay upon the judgement in the case of Jet Freight Logistics Ltd. vs CIT(A) (ITA No. 683/Mum/2022 decided on 23-09-2022 wherein unexplained cash deposit addition was deleted by ITAT Mumbai Bench by observing at para 4.6 as under: ‘’Accordingly, we hold that the entire cash deposits made by the assessee during

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

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

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

demonetization out of cash withdrawals and cash savings. Thus, the action is bad in law, thus order deserves to be quashed. 5. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred by sustaining the demand of Rs. 81,678/- as salary income without considering FORM GA-55A. 6. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred