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

Bench: Him.

unexplained cash deposit as opined by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld A.R relied on certain case laws which are relevant to the issue under consideration. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Patna), it has been held that, when books of account of the assessee were R.S. Diamonds India Private Limited 3 accepted

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)

unexplained cash credits, as no details of sales were provided, and made addition of Rs. 4.72 crores u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. Hon’ble Bench held that where assessee has admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case 10 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE

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

GAYATRI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Charitable Trust [1987] 31 Taxman 335 /167 ITR 129 (Raj )wherein it was held as under: 16 SMT. GAYATRI DEVI VS PR.CIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR “The error envisaged by section 263 was not one which depended on possibility or the guess work but it should be actually an error either of fact or law. Unless the Commissioner categorically says that there

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169. A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the case of section 68, there should

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169. A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the case of section 68, there should

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

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

Charitable Trust [1987] 31 Taxman 335 /167 ITR 129\n(Raj.) wherein it was held as under:\n“The error envisaged by section 263 was not one which depended on\npossibility or the guess work but it should be actually an error either of\nfact or law. Unless the Commissioner categorically says that there was\nsome income from speculative business

GOLECHAS JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n10/04/2024

unexplained cash deposit as opined by the\nAssessing Officer. 5. The Ld A.R relied on certain case laws which are relevant to the\nissue under consideration. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills (1974) 97 ITR 258\n(Patna), it has been held that, when books of account of the assessee were R.S.\nDiamonds India Private Limited 3 accepted

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

Charitable Trust (2022) 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras)/(2023) 450 ITR 368 (Madras)[31.10.2022] x x x x Dr. S.C. Gupta v. 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 vs. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/(2011) 332 ITR 537 (Kerala

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

Charitable Trust (2022) 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras)/(2023) 450 ITR 368 (Madras)[31.10.2022] x x x x Dr. S.C. Gupta v. 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 vs. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/(2011) 332 ITR 537 (Kerala

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

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

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act.\nThe assessee vide its various replies explained that the cash deposited was\nderived from the prior withdrawals from the assessee's own bank account.\nDespite this, the AO observed that the cash book provided by the assessee was an\nafterthought, created just to justify the cash deposit made by the assessee during\nthe year

PANKAJ MANI KULSHRESHTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing.”

Charitable Trust (Gujarat High Court) R/Tax Appeal No. 1335 of 2018 Date of 11 Sh. Panka Mani Khulshrestha vs. ITO Judgement/Order: 30/07/2019 while deciding the issue under consideration if Assesseeremained absent on more than one occasions and appeal decided on merits then whether it will be called as Ex-parte order. The Hon'ble High Court states that

KAMAL SINGH,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WD 1, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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

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

Trust, Sector-9, Faridabad, 2431, Faridabad, Sector-7, SO Faridabad, Haryana Vs. CIT Exemption, Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent)has held as under:- 5. We find that main grievance of the assessee is that the notice calling for certain details issued by the Id CIT(E) were uploaded only in the income tax e filing portal and the same were not sent

LISAMMA SEBASTIAN,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

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

Charitable Trust vs CCIT and Others 365 ITR 233(Ali) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held AO should have relevant and credible material with him to form requisite reason to believe that income of assessee has escaped assessment Maternal available on record has rational connection and relevant bearing on such formation of belief for issuing valid notices

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained cash receipts”, then how it can be said that the AO\nhas failed to make the inquiry, where the scope of inquiry is limited only\nto the extent of that issue and in the action u/s 148 this same issue was\ntaken and also examined in assessment. And till date the position is same\nthere is no change

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

credit score from his\nsalary slip/form-16.\n(ii) The assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence as such\nwhich can substantiate that no cash amount was paid whereas in evidence\nas such categorically mentioned that the seller has received Rs.\n40,00,000/- from the assessee in cash.\n(iii) Further, the statement of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat recorded

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

credit score from his\nsalary slip/form-16.\n(ii) The assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence as such\nwhich can substantiate that no cash amount was paid whereas in evidence\nas such categorically mentioned that the seller has received Rs.\n40,00,000/- from the assessee in cash.\n(iii) Further, the statement of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat recorded