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, 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

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

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

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 of Rs. 15 lacs was offered in case any discrepancy is found

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

money from these companies as unexplained income of the assessee company as per provision of section 68 of the Act. The ld. AO also added a sum of Rs. 3,25,010/- being the commission of 2.5% commission for obtaining this accommodation entry. 12. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before

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)

unexplained money. 3 LISAMMA SEBASTIAN VS ITO, WARD 2(2), KOTA 4.3 The appellant vide letter dated 9 11 2022 has submitted that during FY 2016-17 the amount received in our bank account has been considered as income by the assessing officer when in fact the same represents amount received on behalf of goods sold made during that year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

money from these companies as\nunexplained income of the assessee company as per provision of section\n68 of the Act. The ld. AO also added a sum of Rs.3,25,010/- being the\ncommission of 2.5% commission for obtaining this accommodation entry.\n12. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment\nCenter, assessee preferred an appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

money from these companies as\nunexplained income of the assessee company as per provision of section\n68 of the Act. The ld. AO also added a sum of Rs.3,25,010/- being the\ncommission of 2.5% commission for obtaining this accommodation entry.\n12. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment\nCenter, assessee preferred an appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

money from these companies as\nunexplained income of the assessee company as per provision of section\n68 of the Act. The ld. AO also added a sum of Rs.3,25,010/- being the\ncommission of 2.5% commission for obtaining this accommodation entry.\n\n12. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment\nCenter, assessee preferred an appeal before

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

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

unexplained share application money. Thus it is seen that no addition was\nmade on the issue on which satisfaction was recorded before issuing notice u/s\n148. It was further submitted that no independent application of mind was done by\nId. AO while initiating reassessment proceedings in the reasons so recorded there\nITA NO.616/JPR/2024\nTIJARIA POLYPIPES LTD VS DCIT CIRCLE

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

money as also plug loopholes in the IT Act and to ensure that defaulting assessees are subjected to higher tax and stringent penalty provision. Both the measures spoken of herein were to further the said objects and there cannot be any nexus assumed nor is it discernible 13. Section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance

DILIP SINGH ,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU , JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

money u/s 69A as per the provisions of Section 115BBE is to be taxed at special rate of the I.T. Act, 1961. In view of the above, the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 7.50,000/- are added to the income of the assessee uls 69A of the Act. I am satisfied that assessee has concealed particulars of his income. Therefore

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

unexplained money u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of cash\nfound during the course of search dated 2nd & 3rd August, 2017. Succinctly facts of\nthe case that during the course of search, the above said cash was found at residence\nof the appellant and a statement u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961 was recorded during

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

unexplained share of the money, thereby limiting the scope of assessment under section 153A of the Act only on the basis of incriminating material discovered in the search and thus, denying the Revenue to assess the undisclosed income on the basis of other evidence or post-search enquiries or investigations made during subsequent assessment proceedings. Dismissing the appeals

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

unexplained share of the money, thereby limiting the scope of assessment under section 153A of the Act only on the basis of incriminating material discovered in the search and thus, denying the Revenue to assess the undisclosed income on the basis of other evidence or post-search enquiries or investigations made during subsequent assessment proceedings. Dismissing the appeals