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

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

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)

section 69.” • In the case of Bajaj Sons. Ltd., the Hon’ble Chandigarh Bench of ITAT, ITA No. 1127/CHD/2019, has stated as under: “The AO has not pointed out any 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

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, 69B

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

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

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of\nthe Act had been made by the AO, while completing the assessment on\n15/04/2021, the income has been found to be under computed/assessed\nby this amount of Rs.21,732/-, which was erroneous and prejudicial to\nthe interest of Revenue.\"\n4.3.3 Our Submissions:\nAs evident from the impugned part of the Ld. CIT that that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

69B, 69C and 69D reflected in the return furnished u/s 139 of the income tax act NOR AO determined includes any income referred in the above mentioned sections so our humble submission is that AO imposed normal tax slab because there is no ingredients of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. In our computation of total income

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 of Rs. 13,07,007/- was deleted. b) The ld CIT(A) rejected the books of account by invoking section 145(3) of I.Tax Act by holding that assessee failed to furnish credible evidence in support of the source of cash deposited during the demonetization, hence the books of account of assessee are not reliable. (Page 38 of order

ACIT, NCRB BUILDING JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA REAL ESTATE PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the

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

disallowance of Rs. 36,15,030/- of expenses claimed by the assessee company is being made to assess the total income of the assessee company at Rs. 19,95,00,000/-.” Accordingly, the A.O. made an addition of Rs. 36,15,030/- in the declared income of Rs. 19,58,84,970/- and assessed the assessee company

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, 69B

RIDHIRAJ BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, NCRB, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed the same while passing the Assessment order. Thus, such loss ought to have been set off against the surrendered income in accordance with the provisions of section 71 & 72 of the Act. The provisions of section 115BBE as they stood during the year under consideration also did not bar such set off. The provisions of section 115BBE read

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

disallowance of expenses. Thus, there is no iota of evidence that surrendered income was undisclosed income. The reliance is placed on the judgement in case of ACITVs. Marval Associate (2018) 170 ITD 353. In the said judgement it was held that Section 271AAB sub-clause (c) of the Act defines undisclosed income as under:- (c) “undisclosed income” means

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 69B also stipulates the position where the investment exceeds the amount shown in the books of account. Since the assessee does not maintain any books of account where in the debtors and creditors are reflected, therefore, this addition has also been wrongly made and upheld u/s 69B of the Act Hence, in our considered opinion, only commission income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 69B also stipulates the position where the investment exceeds the amount shown in the books of account. Since the assessee does not maintain any books of account where in the debtors and creditors are reflected, therefore, this addition has also been wrongly made and upheld u/s 69B of the Act Hence, in our considered opinion, only commission income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 69B also stipulates the position where the investment exceeds the amount shown in the books of account. Since the assessee does not maintain any books of account where in the debtors and creditors are reflected, therefore, this addition has also been wrongly made and upheld u/s 69B of the Act Hence, in our considered opinion, only commission income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 69B also stipulates the position where the investment exceeds the amount shown in the books of account. Since the assessee does not maintain any books of account where in the debtors and creditors are reflected, therefore, this addition has also been wrongly made and upheld u/s 69B of the Act Hence, in our considered opinion, only commission income

SHRI NARESH JHANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, JAIPUR

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

Section 69B also stipulates the position where the investment exceeds the amount shown in the books of account. Since the assessee does not maintain any books of account wherein the debtors and creditors are reflected, therefore, this addition has also been wrongly made and upheld u/s 69B of the Act. Hence, in our considered opinion, only commission income

SHRI NARESH JHANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, JAIPUR

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

Section 69B also stipulates the position where the investment exceeds the amount shown in the books of account. Since the assessee does not maintain any books of account wherein the debtors and creditors are reflected, therefore, this addition has also been wrongly made and upheld u/s 69B of the Act. Hence, in our considered opinion, only commission income

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

disallow.\n25\nITA No. 598/JP/2024\nPinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT\n3.8. That on merits also the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 qua\ndisallowance towards PF/ESI read with Rule 87 of the Income Tax Rules is\n\"void on its face\" and is \"invalid\".\n3.9. Thus, the invocation of powers u/s. 263 by the Id. PCIT