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

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

unexplained investments of 50% will attract the provisions of Sec. 69 of the Act. Section 115BBE shall apply as applicable in the relevant AYs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained investments of 50% will attract the provisions of Sec. 69 of the Act. Section 115BBE shall apply as applicable in the relevant AYs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained investments of 50% will attract the provisions of Sec. 69 of the Act. Section 115BBE shall apply as applicable in the relevant AYs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

unexplained investments of 50% will attract the provisions of Sec. 69 of the Act. Section 115BBE shall apply as applicable in the relevant AYs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

unexplained investments of 50% will attract the provisions of Sec. 69 of the Act. Section 115BBE shall apply as applicable in the relevant AYs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

unexplained investments of 50% will attract the provisions of Sec. 69 of the Act. Section 115BBE shall apply as applicable in the relevant AYs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s

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

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

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Unexplained investments. 8069. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation. The said part requires a number of columns to be filled in by the assessee. It has not been suggested that any of the information furnished or any of the particulars given in those columns by the appellant-company were factually incorrect. Nor is it the case of the revenue that the appellant failed to furnish the particulars required

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation. The said part requires a number of columns to be filled in by the assessee. It has not been suggested that any of the information furnished or any of the particulars given in those columns by the appellant-company were factually incorrect. Nor is it the case of the revenue that the appellant failed to furnish the particulars required

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

depreciation. The said part requires a number of columns to be filled in by the assessee. It has not been suggested that any of the information furnished or any of the particulars given in those columns by the appellant-company were factually incorrect. Nor is it the case of the revenue that the appellant failed to furnish the particulars required

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation. The said part requires a number of columns to be filled in by the assessee. It has not been suggested that any of the information furnished or any of the particulars given in those columns by the appellant-company were factually incorrect. Nor is it the case of the revenue that the appellant failed to furnish the particulars required

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

investment\nin jewellery found in search.\n8.1 The Ld. CIT Appeal has erred on fact law in law in upholding the\nabove addition separately whereas the same is covered by peak fund\nflow statement and various addition made by A.O.\n9. The appellant prays your honor’s indulgence to add, amend or alter\nall or any of the ground