ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

unexplained cash credit in different accounts should not be made. When the assessee himself does not contend that the deposit made in the account of 'B' is out of prior withdrawal made in the account of 'A', how does the assessee expect the Department to subscribe to this point of view. We hence reject this contention of the assessee." Heard

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

unexplained cash credit in different accounts should not be made. When the assessee himself does not contend that the deposit made in the account of 'B' is out of prior withdrawal made in the account of 'A', how does the assessee expect the Department to subscribe to this point of view. We hence reject this contention of the assessee." Heard

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

unexplained cash credit in different accounts should not be made. When the assessee himself does not contend that the deposit made in the account of 'B' is out of prior withdrawal made in the account of 'A', how does the assessee expect the Department to subscribe to this point of view. We hence reject this contention of the assessee." Heard

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

unexplained cash credit in different accounts should not be made. When the assessee himself does not contend that the deposit made in the account of 'B' is out of prior withdrawal made in the account of 'A', how does the assessee expect the Department to subscribe to this point of view. We hence reject this contention of the assessee." Heard

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)

credit purchase also proved bogus. From above statement of Shri Rambabu Sambharia, it is evident that he was not engaged in the any business activities and the proprietorship concerned namely Parijat Enterprises was opened and operated in his name by some other person and he is not aware of the transactions made in this concern. Thus, the purchases shown

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

unexplained cash credit in any manner.\nHon'ble Delhi bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs Subhash Gupta in\nITA No.1548/Del/2022 has held that sales cannot be added u/s 68 unless\nthey are proved as bogus on the basis of some reliable evidences.\nHon'ble Hyderabad bench of ITAT in the case of NECX

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained purchases of Rs. 13,00,000/- the same was disallowed u/s. 69C of the Act. 3.5 The ld. AO since rejected the books of account, he went on adding the difference of gross profit declared on the sale with that of the 30 % gross profit estimated by the ld. AO and thereby a separate addition

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchases, opening stock or\nclosing stock are proved to be bogus. However, Ld AO nowhere doubted about\nsources of credit. He only questioned the identification of buyers.\nYour honour, this cash receipt is not the borrowing. In case of borrowing a higher\nonus is lay upon assessee to prove that the receipt is not the income. This is the\ncase

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

unexplained credit. However, the Assessing Officer has not mentioned the relevant section under which, the addition was made, but "unexplained credit" comes under section 68 of the Act. In the appellate order, in page No. 7, para (v), the ld. CIT(A) has noted that "However, I am also in agreement with the appellant that the provisions of section

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)

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act. In the absence of any arguments advanced by the appellant in support of this ground of appeal, the same is decided on merits of the case. Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India in the case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 164 taxmann.com 668 (SC) dismissed

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)

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act. In the absence of any arguments advanced by the appellant in support of this ground of appeal, the same is decided on merits of the case. Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India in the case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 164 taxmann.com 668 (SC) dismissed

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

bogus\npurchases, and non-existing cash balance in the books of account.\nThe AO did not even reject the books of accounts of the appellant\nunder the provision of section145(3) of the Act. Therefore, the\ncontention of the revenue on the facts and circumstances of the case\nis not accepted and we see no reason to interfere

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)

purchaser not established more so when the assessee is bullion trader not a retail jewellery trader. He further observed that the assessee withdrawn cash Rs 3,00,000/- on 06-08-2016 and Rs 5,00,000/- on 08-09-2016 whereas, the assessee has enough cash balance in cash book. Further, the assessee has not submitted the cash book

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchases to show bogus sales to cover up cash deposited during the demonetization period” 12. We also see that the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) have also objected to the cash deposit to cash sales ratio. The ld. AO stated that the cash deposit made during October and 08th November, 2016 out of cash sales is higher than

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

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

bogus expenses by arranging pre-dated bills/vouchers. In this regard the unexplained cash of Rs. 13,07,300 was added to the income, which has been challenged under Ground of Appeal No.1. Further, it was observed that some of the expenses (advertisement expenses, hospital expenses) were booked with supporting in the shape of self made vouchers or no supporting

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained cash credit.\n4.6 The reply of the assessee on another issue i.e. commission paid in lieu of\nbogus entry of Long Term Capital Gains, has been considered but not found\ntenable. The submission of the assessee that he has not paid any commission\nfor taking bogus entry of exempted LTCG, is far from truth. The\nassessee has failed

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained credit in the batch of appeals involving two jewellery and bullion dealers in the context of post-demonetisation cash deposits; 7.9.1 The Hon'ble ITAT rejects Assessee's submission of receiving cash from thousands of customers immediately after announcement of demonetisation. ITAT remarks, "The assessee either deposited its undisclosed amount or otherwise helped DR undisclosed, unanimous and unidentifiable persons

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

bogus purchases, and non-existing cash balance in the books of account Similar observations were made by ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Raj Kumar Nowal, ITA No. 165/JP/2022, Jaipur Bench, 2.13. Attention is drawn towards Hon’ble ITAT, Vishakhapatnam Bench in the case of Hirapanna Jewellers, I.T.A. No. 253/Viz/2020. The facts in this case are that the assessee