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

undisclosed income of the assessee and a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- is hereby added to the total income for the period relevant to the assessment year under consideration." The Ld. AR of the appellant argued that the assessee in course of search surrendered the income of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- by considering the document of income

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

undisclosed income of the assessee and a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- is hereby added to the total income for the period relevant to the assessment year under consideration." The Ld. AR of the appellant argued that the assessee in course of search surrendered the income of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- by considering the document of income

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

undisclosed income doesn't come within the purview of section 154 of the Act….” [Emphasis Supplied] Thus, having not invoked Section 69 or not recorded any satisfaction in this regard, lower authorities was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE. B. Where any non-income is converted by AO to income, as per Section 68 to 69B then

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

undisclosed income doesn't come within the purview of section 154 of the Act….” [Emphasis Supplied] Thus, having not invoked Section 69 or not recorded any satisfaction in this regard, lower authorities was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE. B. Where any non-income is converted by AO to income, as per Section 68 to 69B then

VIVEKANDA SHIKSHA SAMITI,PALWAS ROAD, SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

charitable society with the\nmain object of carrying out educational activities. A search and seizure action u/s\n132 was carried out on the members of Prince Group, Sikar on 10/03/2018 of\nwhich assessee is one of the entity. In response to notice u/s 153C, the appellant\nfiled its return of income declaring total income

INDIAN MEDICAL TRUST,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the\nrevenue are dismissed

Charitable Trust is AY 2006-07 & 2007-\n08 while the case of the assessee, the assessment year involved\nis 2017-18 and the provision of the Act have been changed vide\nan amendment in Sec 11 by insertion of clause (6) by the\nFinance Act,2014 w.e.f. 01-04-2015.\"\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras)/[2023] 450 ITR 368 (Madras) [31-10-2022] x x x x Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252 (Allahabad) x x x x Bachittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana] x x x x CIT v. Hotel Mariya [2010] 195 taxman 459 (Kerala

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Charitable Trust [2022] 144\ntaxmann.com 54 (Madras)/[2023] 450 ITR 368 (Madras) (31-10-2022]\n\"63. The statements given to the Assessing officer under section 132 (4) have\nlegal force Unless the retractions are made within a short span of time, supported\nby affidavit swearing that the contents are incorrect and it was obtained under\nforce, coercion

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)

undisclosed income is most arbitrary and unjust and not maintainable in law. 6 Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust 8. That the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the total income of the assessee from interest accrued on term deposits in the previous year relevant to subject assessment year is of Rs. 82,084 only in the previous

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

charitable trust, had disclosed donations received by it as its income, and claimed\nexemption u/s.11. The Assessing Officer, on finding that the assessee was unable to\nsatisfactorily explain the donations and the donors were fictitious persons, held that\nthe assessee had tried to introduce unaccounted money in its books by way of\ndonations and, therefore, the amount

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)

charitable trust, had disclosed donations received by it as its income, and claimed exemption u/s. 11. The Assessing Officer, on finding that the assessee was unable to satisfactorily explain the donations and the donors were fictitious persons, held that the assessee had tried to introduce unaccounted money in its books by way of donations and, therefore, the amount

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

undisclosed income includes any income based on entry in books of accounts wholly or partly false and would not have been found to be so, had the search not been conducted. This clearly implies that any entry even recorded in the books, which is found to be wholly or Professional Automotives Private Limited vs. ACIT partly false along with having

AKSHAT LOYALKA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-C-(101)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Charitable Trust.\nThe assessee has also shown income form capital gain on sale of shares and other\nincome. Considering his income and net worth his house hold expenses are estimated at\nRs.1,25,000/- per month.\nConsidering his worth and stature it is quite possible that money withdrawn from banks\nare utilized towards house hold expenses.\nIn the assessment order

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

Charitable Trust [2022] 144\ntaxmann.com 54 (Madras)/[2023] 450 ITR 368 (Madras)[31-10-2022]\nX\nX\nX\nX\nDr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2001] 118 Taxman 252\n(Allahabad)\nX\nX\nX\nBachittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nCIT vs. Hotel Meriya (2010) 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala

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

Charitable Trust [2022] 144\ntaxmann.com 54 (Madras)/[2023] 450 ITR 368 (Madras)[31-10-2022]\nX\nX\nX\nX\nDr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2001] 118 Taxman 252\n(Allahabad)\nX\nX\nX\nBachittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nCIT vs. Hotel Meriya (2010) 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala

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

Charitable Trust [2022] 144\ntaxmann.com 54 (Madras)/[2023] 450 ITR 368 (Madras)[31-10-2022]\nX\nX\nX\nX\nDr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2001] 118 Taxman 252\n(Allahabad)\nX\nX\nX\nBachittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nCIT vs. Hotel Meriya (2010) 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala

SAURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

charitable purposes. However the appellant has not done so. Further it is not the case of the appellant that he has obtained registration under section 12A/12AA. The appellant has also not complied with the legal provisions of trust and exemption provisions under section 11 and 12 regarding the registration of trust and regarding the application of the voluntary contribution

SOURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

charitable purposes. However the appellant has not done so. Further it is not the case of the appellant that he has obtained registration under section 12A/12AA. The appellant has also not complied with the legal provisions of trust and exemption provisions under section 11 and 12 regarding the registration of trust and regarding the application of the voluntary contribution

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

undisclosed investment u/s 69 of the Act and to be taxed as per the provision of section 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. In the meantime, since the assessee was NRI and no valid notice was physical served and there was issue of jurisdiction of the cases also as advised