SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 then the jurisdiction of CIT (A) in limited to deciding the matter whether the addition u/s 69A is correct or not. In the appellate proceeding the addition cannot be confirmed by applying all together different section by invoking a section for which satisfaction is required to be by “Assessing Officer” and the assessing officer

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases, and non- existing cash balance in the books of account. The AO did not even reject the books of accounts of the appellant under the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the revenue on the facts and circumstance of the case is not accepted - Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 18 Alka

SH. TAIYAB KHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

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

69A become applicable as both the provisions come into play only if cash found is unexplained. 1.2. That, Id.CIT(A) has further erred in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act in respect of enhancement made to income u/s 68/69A. 1.3. That, Id. CIT(A) further erred in enhancing assessment by Rs.62,39,963/- without considering

M/S. SHRI NATH CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee and that of the revenue stands

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

69A, 69B, 69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays your honour to direct the ld. AO to tax the additions, if any sustained by your honour at the normal tax rates without invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE.” 5.1 The ld. AR of the assessee heavily relied

DCIT, CC-2,, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee and that of the revenue stands

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

69A, 69B, 69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays your honour to direct the ld. AO to tax the additions, if any sustained by your honour at the normal tax rates without invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE.” 5.1 The ld. AR of the assessee heavily relied

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account of alleged undisclosed income

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account of alleged undisclosed income

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

purchases made against these sales nor rejected appellant's books of accounts. 4.2.1 Section 69A stipulates that, Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus LTCG of Rs.15,95,000/-which has not\nbeen found genuine and verifiable from Income Tax Return on prima facie verification. The last\nsentence records that as per this information, \"reasons to believe' are formed, approval taken\nunder section 151 and notice issued under section 148 of the Act.\n\nii) The aforesaid reasons do not satisfy the requirements

ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(2), AJMER

bogus sales or\notherwise to deposit his undisclosed cash in the bank account during the\ndemonetization period.\n3.6 Section 145(3) empowers the AO to reject books of accounts u/s 145(3)\nunder ANY of the following circumstances -\n(a) Where he is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts; OR\n(b) Where method of accounting

MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,CHURU vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. In our computation of total income Rs 40 lacs income showed as income declared in survey.(PB-5) During the course of Assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO was satisfied that looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of the sec. 69A of the act are not applicable

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

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

bogus only to give colour to non- genuine transaction as genuine transaction when all the transactions have been substantiated with purchase and sale register as well as stock register. 6. Because the L.d. CIT(A) has not accepted the contention of the appellant that it had changed its sales strategy in the later part of the FY 2015-16 whereby

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchases, and non-existing cash balance in the books of account. The AO did not even reject the books of accounts of the appellant under the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the revenue on the facts and circumstances of the case is not accepted and we see no reason to interfere

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)

69A by concluding as under: “5. In view of the foregoing facts, it is sufficiently clear that the assessee has benefitted from engaging in reversal trades in illiquid stock options on the BSE resulting in non-genuine profit amounting to Rs 5,12,17,312/- which has been set off against other incomes .The assessee has introduced his unaccounted income

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

69A without appreciating the facts of the case and the scope of provisions of above section.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeals, the Bench notices that there is delay of 171 days in filing the each appeals by the assessee for which the assessee has filed different applications dated 30-07-2925 for condonation of delay

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

69A without appreciating the facts of the case and the scope of provisions of above section.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeals, the Bench notices that there is delay of 171 days in filing the each appeals by the assessee for which the assessee has filed different applications dated 30-07-2925 for condonation of delay

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases and to that extent profit had\nescaped assessment from tax. The assessee filed its objections to the reopening of\nassessment. The AO passed an order rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner\nwhich showed that the reopening was based on material received from the DGIT (Inv.),\nMumbai, pursuant to inquiries made by him (the DGIT). On writ filed

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

69A or in the form of unexplained debtors/ unexplained investment not recorded in the books taxable u/s 69 of the Act. Accordingly the addition was confirmed. Further the alternative contention that only gross profit on such sales can be taxed is also rejected for the reason that assessee has not proved that unaccounted sales are made from accounted purchase

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

69A or in the form of unexplained debtors/ unexplained investment not recorded in the books taxable u/s 69 of the Act. Accordingly the addition was confirmed. Further the alternative contention that only gross profit on such sales can be taxed is also rejected for the reason that assessee has not proved that unaccounted sales are made from accounted purchase