ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

deposit ld. AO asked for the details of the sales and purchases. The assessee supported the sales proceeding by placing the records such as cash book, bank books, stock record, purchase and sales bill and also filed the records of the his value added tax return wherein the sales made by the assessee recorded and thereby we note that there

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

disallowance out of rent expenses is upheld and ground\nNo. 4 is dismissed.\n8.0 Ground No. 5 is with regard to the addition of Rs.40,00,000/- cash deposited

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

cash deposits. 13. It is reiterated that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has maintained books of account and as per cash book, cash receipts against student fees are supported by necessary service tax invoices. There is a fundamental mistake in assessing the business receipt as unexplained money taxable

OM PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

deposited in cash in the above bank account is fully explained. “ The learned AO did not accept the above submissions and cash flow chart submitted by the assessee because of the following reasons: - (i) That the assessee has introduced Rs. 13,00,000/- as capital in the partnership firm out of above withdrawals made on 03.09.2012, 12.09.2012 and 18.10.2012 which

SHOBHA TOMAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

cash at year end Table A hereinabove 16,97,292 2. Higher taxable income Table A hereinabove 25,52,460 Higher source for bank deposits 42,49,752 TABLE “D” (Extra deposits in bank account – compared to AY 2016- 17)) S. No. Deposit in bank account Amount Paper book page 1. Asstt. Year

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

cash deposit as unexplained money therefore, the AO is fully justified in making/confirming the disallowance in the amount of Rs. 16,52,000 /-, found

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

disallowance out of Other Expenses 15,00,000 2. Addition u/s 69A by treating cash deposited in bank 2,64,00,000 accounts

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

cash deposit amount of ₹1,30,82,000/-\nas unexplained income. This arbitrary expansion of addition beyond the stated\nunexplained amount is manifestly unjustified.\n4.\nFatal Impact of Lack of SCN as per Binding CBDT Instruction:\nThe Ld. AO failed to issue any valid and reasoned Show Cause Notice (SCN).\nSpecifically, the AO neither mentioned the proposed quantum of additions

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

cash deposit of Rs. 3,80,000/- be disallowed and\nadded to his total income.\nIn response of the above

MUKESH SONI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

deposit of Rs. 32,71,000 in bank accounts during 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016 and thus it amounts to double additions once as sale duly forming part of assessee’s regular book of accounts and again as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Under such facts and circumstances amount of cash sales cannot be treated as undisclosed income because no duplicate addition

ITO , NCRB JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance of Rs.64820559/- towards alleged cash payments in excess of Rs.20000/- which is mostly represents the cash deposited in to the Bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

cash deposits in bank accounts. The ld. AO also noted that keeping in view the defects, pointed out above in para 5 given supra, and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the claim of expenses under various heads have been claimed to reduce the incidence of tax. In such circumstances, disallowances

SUSHILA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

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

cash deposit. Therefore, the proceedings initiated\nagainst the assessee is bad in law and is to be quashed.\n1.2.3 No independent enquiry by the Id. AO: It is clear from the annexure to\nthe copy of reasons recorded that despite there being ample powers, the Id.\nAO did not even issued a single notice to the bank to check

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

cash deposited by the is supported with the cash book and the cash books is also supported with the books of accounts maintained by the assessee which is also supported with sales/cash sales, purchase, stock register, ledger, bank accounts, bills, vouchers and other documents. And the ld. AO has not rejected all these or not invoked provision of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

depositing cash in banks as a result of demonetization. 4.3.5 Reason and justification of Heavy cash sales as on 08.11.2016 So far as heavy cash sales of Rs. 9,73,23,724/- as on 08.11.2016 i.e.the day on which the demonetization was announcedthe appellant submits that, with the announcement of the Hon’ble Prime Minister in respect of demonetization

GAYTRI DEVI SHARMA,CHOMU vs. ITO WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

disallowing legitimate business-related cash deposits is required. 1.4 Reliance is placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme

BHARTESH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

cash deposits in the bank during the demonetization period. The assessment in the case was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 06.06.2019 at an income of Rs. 8,03,415/-, after making a disallowance

SHRI DINESH OJHA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

deposited cash of Rs. 73,200/- in his account during the year from his own saving. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Cash of Rs. 90,00,000/-. If we follow the 52 ITA 433/JP/2023 BALAJI JEWELLERS VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR presumption of the Ld. AO then many figures will have to be fixed on revers angle such as Sales would be reduced by Rs. 90,00,000/- resulted Net Profit would have been converted into Loss