SHRI BHAGWATI FARMS,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

demonetization period, thus the disallowance is made on the wrong premises and the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-IV has erred

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

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

demonetization period accordingly notice 143(2) dated 2 Sh. Murli Dhar Upadhyay, jaipur. 21/09/2018 was issued and further notices were issued which were replied sufficiently by the assessee, matter discussed and assessment order was passed by making disallowance

S R AGRO TECH,BEHROR vs. ITO, WARD, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetization period and (ii) lower amount disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia)’’. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act by ITO Ward

MAHIPAL SINGH ,JAIPUR vs. ACTI, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed and orders of the authorities below are confirmed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarmahipal Singh, 10-11, Chand Bihari Nagar, Near Lal Mandir Khatipura, Jhotwara, Jaipur – 302012. Pan No. Fhbps 0107P ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowing the of Rs. 5, 50,000/- u/s. 69A as cost cash deposited during the period of demonetization without appreciating

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)

demonetization period. Hence the AD treated unexplained cash credit of Rs. 79,81,000/- and added to the total income of the assesses of the 1.1. Act. Issue 2 Disallowance

DEV GROUP,ALWAR vs. ITO,WARD BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Him.

demonetization period as undisclosed income. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) 3 has erred in confirming the ah-hoc disallowance

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

demonetization in this year) there is no error in the\naction by the assessing officer.\n13. This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily\nascertain the disallowance

SHAILESH KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ACIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with no orders as to costs

demonetization. Therefore, apart from making addition u/s 69A of the Act, another addition of Rs.1.00 lac was made on estimate basis towards disallowance

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

disallowance Amount (in Rs.) 1. Trading addition by applying the GP rate of 23.54% 37,28,523/- 2. Cash deposited in bank account after demonetization

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

disallowance Amount (in Rs.) 1. Trading addition by applying the GP rate of 23.54% 37,28,523/- 2. Cash deposited in bank account after demonetization

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 during demonetization

KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Him. 2

demonetization period as undisclosed income. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the ah-hoc disallowance

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

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. R.P.K. GEMS AND JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

demonetization period Decision of CIT(A): The CIT(A) vide order dated 25.07.2024 allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the AO had not pointed out any defect in the purchase and sales made as per books of account and merely rejected/ disallowed

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\nduring the demonetization

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)

demonetization as unexplained under sec. 68 of Act. Considering totality of the facts and circumstance of the case, ld. CIT(A) acted in very arbitrary way in sustaining major amount of disallowance

BHERU LAL KUMAWAT,VILL KULTHANA vs. ITO PRATAPGARH, PRATAPGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of agricultural income alleging from undisclosed sources respectively, when as per notice issued under CASS, the only reason for selection in scrutiny was “Return filed after 07.11.2016 and cash deposit during demonetization

SHISHPAL SINGH JADAUN,KARAULI vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

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

disallowance of the expenditure even where tax payer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income. The second issue regarding cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 24.11.2011 (during demonetization