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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

69B, 69C and 69D reflected in the return furnished u/s 139 of the income tax act NOR AO determined includes any income referred in the above mentioned sections so our humble submission is that AO imposed normal tax slab because there is no ingredients of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. In our computation of total income

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

69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess as applicable). It is also proposed to provide that no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of the Act in computing deemed income under the said sections. This amendment will take effect from

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)

69B then only Section 115BBE can be made applicable. In the present case, assessee himself offered amount for taxation. In view of the above, application of Section 68, read with Section 115BBE, by the ld. AO, to the amount of Rs. 80,00,000 accounted for sales by the assessee, is illegal and deserves to be quashed

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

bogus u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, in\ncomputation sheet of assessed income and tax payable, issued by the\nFAO, with the assessment order, the tax had been charged by the FAO\nat normal rates in place of charging the same at special rates of tax as\nper Section 115BBE of the Act. As such the computation

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

purchases in relation to such sale is not taxed u/s 69C, then the sale has to be taxed as such ignoring that when profit from Raja Bricks is already taxed, such profit is the source against the purchase of sariya and gartar sold to various persons. Hence what can be added is the profit on such sale for which reliance

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

purchases in relation to such sale is not taxed u/s 69C, then the sale has to be taxed as such ignoring that when profit from Raja Bricks is already taxed, such profit is the source against the purchase of sariya and gartar sold to various persons. Hence what can be added is the profit on such sale for which reliance

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. LAKHI GEMS, JAIPUR

In the result, ground of appeal taken by the Revenue as well as that of the assessee is hereby dismissed

bogus purchases, made for the sole purpose of deflating its actual profits and the assessee's books are therefore, rejected u/s 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 on this ground. However, based on the above discussion as well as looking to all possibilities, 25% of the total purchases of Rs. 72,78,133/- are being disallowed, which comes

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

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)

69B, then only Section 115BBE can be made applicable. In the present case, assessee himself offered amount for taxation. In view of the above, application of Section 68 read with Section 115BBE by the ld. AO to the amount of cash sales of Rs. 4,35,91,454/- which is duly accounted for in the books of account

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

69B in regard to it as\nstated above, assessee have never purchase immovable property instead it has\nsold immovable property to M/s Jumbo Chemicals & Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd.\nTherefore entire reassessment proceedings based on wrong satisfaction\ndeserves to be held bad in law and consequent additions deserves to be deleted.\nFrom the perusal of the remand report it is evident

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases, and non-existing cash balance in the books of account\nSimilar observations were made by ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of\nRaj Kumar Nowal, ITA No. 165/JP/2022, Jaipur Bench (DPB 108-166)\nAttention is drawn towards Hon'ble ITAT, Vishakhapatnam Bench in the case\nof Hirapanna Jewellers, I.T.A. No. 253/Viz/2020. The facts in this case are that

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

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

69B\nCommissioner (Appeals) deleted impugned addition by referring to a\nchart indicating stock position as on 28-3-2005 submitted to bank with\nstock position as per stock register on 28-3-2005 Tribunal held that\nassessee was bound to explain difference either before Assessing\nOfficer or before Commissioner (Appeals) or before Tribunal and same\nwas not done It taking

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

purchase of land. There is no witness of such cash payment. There is no evidence that the cash has actually changed hands. Moreover, how, when and to whom the alleged cash money was transferred also remain unanswered. It is true that other than the excel sheet, there is no evidence for undisclosed investment as discussed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

purchase of land. There is no witness of such cash payment. There is no evidence that the cash has actually changed hands. Moreover, how, when and to whom the alleged cash money was transferred also remain unanswered. It is true that other than the excel sheet, there is no evidence for undisclosed investment as discussed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

purchase of land. There is no witness of such cash payment. There is no evidence that the cash has actually changed hands. Moreover, how, when and to whom the alleged cash money was transferred also remain unanswered. It is true that other than the excel sheet, there is no evidence for undisclosed investment as discussed