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

69A without rejecting the books of account by invoking the provisions of s. 145(3) The Income Tax Law does not empower the AD to make exorbitant addition without rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) The appellant also relied upon some decisions. Considering the reply of the appellant and facts of the case, it was considered that

SH. TAIYAB KHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

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

69A become applicable as both the provisions come into play only if cash found is unexplained. 1.2. That, Id.CIT(A) has further erred in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act in respect of enhancement made to income u/s 68/69A. 1.3. That, Id. CIT(A) further erred in enhancing assessment by Rs.62,39,963/- without considering

SH. SANJAY BAIRATHI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

disallowed the claim of loss due to decrease in the market price of the gold bullion 3 ITA N0. 1343/JP/2018 Shri Sanjay Bairathi, Jaipur. on the ground that the said bullion found at the time of search is not stock-in-trade of the assessee and further as per provisions of section 115BBE(1)(a), no claim of deduction

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

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A

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)

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account of alleged undisclosed income

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)

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account of alleged undisclosed income

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent, and (b) The amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause(a) (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure

M/S. ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD VILLAGE POST-PATAN, TEHSIL-KISHANGARH, DISTRICT-AJMER,KISHANGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

section 69A of the Act on Rs. 1,77,95,859/- reflecting turnover surrendered before the Central Excise Authorities and in granting benefit of brought forward of losses/depreciation. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax u/s. 3 M/s Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer

MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,CHURU vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. In our computation of total income Rs 40 lacs income showed as income declared in survey.(PB-5) During the course of Assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO was satisfied that looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of the sec. 69A of the act are not applicable

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)

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses or acquired any assets or money etc. the addition in alternative grounds is also not sustainable. I find force in the arguments. Since there

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses or acquired any assets or money etc. the addition in alternative grounds is also not sustainable. I find force in the arguments. Since there

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses or acquired any assets or money etc. the addition in alternative grounds is also not sustainable. I find force in the arguments. Since there

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses or acquired any assets or money etc. the addition in alternative grounds is also not sustainable. I find force in the arguments. Since there

SATISH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section 69A is not applicable in this case because there are proper entries in the books of accounts of the assessee in relation to cash sale, cash balance and cash deposit (SBN’s) in bank. 2. That sale transactions in cash cannot be taxed u/s. 69A of the Act because the sales against cash and deposit of such cash

M/S NAVJEEVAN TRADE & COMMODITIES P.LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result the same are treated as infructuous

disallowing set off has come into force w.e.f. 1-4-2017.” 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has declared income from commission and brokerage at Rs. 78,71,900/- in its profit and loss account and offered the same to tax under the head “profit and gain of business/profession

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

section\n40A(3) of the Act nor it is the allegation of the Id.AO.\nIn view of above, it is requested that disallowance out of commission expenses of\nRs.52,648/- made by Id.AO deserves to be deleted.\nGround of Appeal No.3 & 4:\nIn ground of appeal no.3, assessee has challenged the action of Id. CIT (A) in\nconfirming the disallowance

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

69A,\n69B & 69C there should be clearly identifiable investment or asset or\nexpenditure (i.e. in our understanding not connected with business so as\nto make convenient to invoke aforesaid sections). In case source of\ninvestment or asset or expenditure is clearly identifiable and has no\nindependent existence of its own where a case arises to claim that it\ncannot