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

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, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

purchases on credit before the demonetization from M/s Girdhar Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, on credit before demonetization period from 19.07.2016 to 15.10.2016 amounting Rs 18,83,64,457/-. Based on all these defects noted by the ld. AO, he has rejected the book results of the assessee u/s. 145(3) of the Act and proceeded to considered the cash sales

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

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

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases, and non-existing cash in the books of account. Infact the AO did not even reject the books of accounts of the appellant under the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. (vii) It is also observed that the AO has treated the cash deposited in the banks during the demonetization period in demonetized currency as unexplained

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

unexplained investment only because the vendor denied the transaction. The Court held that though the assessee’s contention that he had no bank account was found to be false, the disallowance was not justified. And the fact that Sales Tax was not paid by the party who sold the goods does not affect the genuineness of transaction. (v) ACITv.Kishan

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR NOWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

unexplained cash credits merely on the basis surmises & conjectures is fallacious and deserves to be deleted and ld CIT(A) has deleted it rightly. d) Ld AO wrongly held that the assessee has not filed any evidence to substantiate its sales. i) As apparent above the assessee was having sufficient source of cash in hand out of amount received against/for

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