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, 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

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 Rs.17,25,82,500/- (ii)Disallowance of interest Rs 97,12,126/- (iii)Disallowance of depreciation

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Cash deposit during the year ii. Share capital/Capital dt. 19.09.2016 (PB-42) by stating that return of income filed by you for A.Y. 2017- 18 on 06.11.2017 is selected for scrutiny”. The ld. AO has provided the reason for scrutiny that for what reason it has been selected, as it was mandatory on the part to mention or write

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without properly considering the Remand Report and various facts finding during the assessment proceeding. 5. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,35,43,168/- disallowed of interest on above unexplained unsecured loan and thereby

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

credit theory by netting transaction in search record for cash loan\ntaken and cash loan given and uphold the addition by own presumption\nmethod termed as incremental negative peak Rs 36847600 and\naccount of unexplained loan given u/s 69 Rs 3847400 without\nconsidering all facts in seized documents.\n2.1 The ld CIT Appeal further erred in calculation of negative peak

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 ofthe IT Act and tax is levied as per section 1158BE of the Act." 7.2 The submissions of the appellant during the appellate proceedings are reproduced as under: ‘’The appellant has stated relevant facts of the case is already reproduced in foregoing para5.2. Therefore the same is not reproducing here for the sake of brevity

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 ofthe IT Act and tax is levied as per section 1158BE of the Act." 7.2 The submissions of the appellant during the appellate proceedings are reproduced as under: ‘’The appellant has stated relevant facts of the case is already reproduced in foregoing para5.2. Therefore the same is not reproducing here for the sake of brevity

SMT. SHEELA YOGI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

Bench: Him Under Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Act, 1962. 2(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

cash credit u/s 68 of the Act which reads as under: “68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained credit u/s 68. The addition made should be restricted to the Peak Credit balance. 6. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 48,59,280/- as per return. The restriction on set off of loss u/s 115BBE does not apply to set off of unabsorbed depreciation. 7. That the learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

credited in the books of an assessee, and the explanation regarding\nits nature and source is either not provided or deemed unsatisfactory by the AO,\nthen such sum may be treated as income of the assessee for that previous\nyear. In this case, the assessee has provided comprehensive documentation,\nincluding PAN details, ITRs, audited financial statements, and confirmations\nfrom lenders

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained credit in the books of account, any unexplained investment, any unexplained money, bullion or jewellery, any unexplained expenditure or any amount of loan repaid in the assessment order in this respect. Therefore, the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D are not attracted on the surrendered amount of Rs. 15 lacs. The said amount

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

unexplained credit. The assessee has not submitted complete books of accounts and based on the three months details ld. AO cannot be expected to justify the sales which remained doubted. Ld. AO has to assessee the income of the whole year and not for the part of the year. The sales pattern observed by the AO is very much abnormal

NEHA WADHWA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A).

credited gross receipts of Rs. 4,05,000/- from car plying business also. On 3 Neha Wadhwa vs. ITO further examination of the documents furnished by assessee, notice u/s 142(1) was issued along with detailed questionnaire on 27.10.2018 asking the assessee to justify the interest receipts from sundry debtors amounting to Rs. 4,45,200 and in the balance

PADAM KUMAR GOYAL,TONK vs. ITO WARD-TONK, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TONK

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)

unexplained. The assessment has been made as per the best judgement u/s 144 of the Act. The as per the facts of the case the credits in the account of the appellant has been withdrawn regularly. Having regard to the fact the cash was found deposited by various business concerns, viz., M/s Hyderabad Kavuri Hills, M/s SRN Infrastructures, M/s Balaji

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

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

unexplained investment/expenditure. Even the AO has accepted that such receipt is included 17 Yuwam Education Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur vs. DCIT in the P&L A/c when he reduced the amount of Rs.46,68,283/- from the profit & gains from business and separately added it for taxation u/s 115BBE of the Act in computing the total income

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

credited in the Consignment account in current Financial year i.e. 2020-21 Copy of Consignment account for the financial year 2020- 21 showing Nil Balance was placed on record. Therefore, assessee contended that there was no Stock lying with Hongkong Consignment account as on 13.07.2020. Accordingly, Value of stock of Rs. 31,091/- as alleged in the notice should