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

unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 2,56,996 made w.r.t. Kotak Bank Loan is hereby directed to be deleted. In view of the above, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. Ground of Appeal No. 4 is as under: Ground

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.

unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 2,56,996 made w.r.t. Kotak Bank Loan is hereby directed to be deleted. In view of the above, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. Ground of Appeal No. 4 is as under: Ground

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)

unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 2,56,996 made w.r.t. Kotak Bank Loan is hereby directed to be deleted. In view of the above, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. Ground of Appeal No. 4 is as under: Ground

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)

unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 2,56,996 made w.r.t. Kotak Bank Loan is hereby directed to be deleted. In view of the above, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. Ground of Appeal No. 4 is as under: Ground

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

unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 2,56,996 made w.r.t. Kotak Bank Loan is hereby directed to be deleted. In view of the above, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. Ground of Appeal No. 4 is as under: Ground

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

unexplained cash. 15 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 14. I have carefully examined the assessment order and the written submissions filed by the appellant. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has stated that the cash amounting to Rs. 3.41 crores deposited in the bank account of Ms. Vandana Agarwal, in December, 2016, that is, during the demonetization period

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

unexplained transactions being a money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961\nat page No. 17 and 18 of the assessment order.\n2(ii)\nIt is evident from the assessment order that the appellant has not\nborrowed the money from the above said person but he advance the said money\nto Shri Ram Chandra Saini. Thus, the requirement to prove

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

unexplained transactions being a money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961\nat page No. 17 and 18 of the assessment order.\n2(ii) It is evident from the assessment order that the appellant has not\nborrowed the money from the above said person but he advance the said money\nto Shri Ram Chandra Saini. Thus, the requirement to prove

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

unexplained transactions being a money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961\nat page No. 17 and 18 of the assessment order.\n2(ii) It is evident from the assessment order that the appellant has not\nborrowed the money from the above said person but he advance the said money\nto Shri Ram Chandra Saini. Thus, the requirement to prove

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)

money under Section 69A. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts of the case i) by treating the cash deposit of Rs. 2499800/- during 01/4/2016 to 31/10/2016 out of the opening cash balance as on 01/4/2016 as 'explained", ii) by treating the cash deposit of Rs. 1522500/- during 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

money\npaid by the assessee to purchase the aforesaid flat. Since, the assessee\ncould not the source of same. Hence, same is held unexplained\ninvestment of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act and a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-\nis added back to the total income of the assessee and taxable at the rate\nof 30% as provision

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. It is further noticed that the company M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd is enlisted as shell company in the databank available with the Investigation Wing, Kolkata. In this regard, Mr. Prem kumar Agarwal & Mr. Amit Agarwal, Director of M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd has given declaration on 29.03.2014 before the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-2(3), Kolkata that they

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 &

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 the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: Ground No. 1 5.2 I have

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)

unexplained cash credit . The ld AO went off the track while making assessment of Income , for the reason best known to him alone , in as much , the entire source of cash deposit was well explained and there is no adverse inference neither 14 Pawan Meena vs. ITO about consumption of cash withdrawal elsewhere nor about receipt of cash gift from

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

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)

unexplained money u/s 69A and of Rs. 81,678/- under salary head. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, No Comments appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), wherein worthy CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO. 5. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) for No Comments confirming the additions, Appellant filed appeal before

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

unexplained money cannot be upheld. Not providing the cross examinations 19. It was also pointed out that for both the A. Yrs only the copy of statement of entry operator was provided with the SCN by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO also did not allow cross examination despite specific request by the Ld. A/R vide letter dated

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

unexplained money cannot be upheld. Not providing the cross examinations 19. It was also pointed out that for both the A. Yrs only the copy of statement of entry operator was provided with the SCN by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO also did not allow cross examination despite specific request by the Ld. A/R vide letter dated

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

unexplained money cannot be upheld. Not providing the cross examinations 19. It was also pointed out that for both the A. Yrs only the copy of statement of entry operator was provided with the SCN by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO also did not allow cross examination despite specific request by the Ld. A/R vide letter dated