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

investment nor any unexplained expenditure or otherwise any unexplained asset was found during the search action so far as the 16 Silver Wings Life Spaces vs DCIT, Kota aforesaid surrender of Rs. 15 lacs was concerned. In these circumstances, the aforesaid surrender of Rs. 15 lacs can be said to have been offered to cover up the discrepancies in respect

TEJENDER PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result ITA No. 1147/JP/2024 (A

unexplained\ninvestment in plot and disallowance of deduction u/s.80C of the Act amounting\nto Rs.51,960/-. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT (A)-2, Udaipur, who in turn confirmed the order of the AO vide\norder dated: 28.06.2019. The assessee being further aggrieved with this order of\nthe

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

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT “Decision The facts of the case are considered. There

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT “Decision The facts of the case are considered. There

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT “Decision The facts of the case are considered. There

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT “Decision The facts of the case are considered. There

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT “Decision The facts of the case are considered. There

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT “Decision The facts of the case are considered. There

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.

disallowing peak credit theory by netting transaction in search record for cash loan taken and cash loan given and uphold the addition by own presumption method termed as incremental negative peak Rs 591812 and account of unexplained loan given u/s 69 Rs 2,76,00,000 without considering all facts in seized documents. 2.1 The Id CIT Appeal further erred

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.

disallowing peak credit theory by netting transaction in search record for cash loan taken and cash loan given and uphold the addition by own presumption method termed as incremental negative peak Rs 591812 and account of unexplained loan given u/s 69 Rs 2,76,00,000 without considering all facts in seized documents. 2.1 The Id CIT Appeal further erred

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.

disallowing peak credit theory by netting transaction in search record for cash loan taken and cash loan given and uphold the addition by own presumption method termed as incremental negative peak Rs 591812 and account of unexplained loan given u/s 69 Rs 2,76,00,000 without considering all facts in seized documents. 2.1 The Id CIT Appeal further erred

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.

disallowing peak credit theory by netting transaction in search record for cash loan taken and cash loan given and uphold the addition by own presumption method termed as incremental negative peak Rs 591812 and account of unexplained loan given u/s 69 Rs 2,76,00,000 without considering all facts in seized documents. 2.1 The Id CIT Appeal further erred

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, 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.

disallowing peak credit theory by netting transaction in search record for cash loan taken and cash loan given and uphold the addition by own presumption method termed as incremental negative peak Rs 591812 and account of unexplained loan given u/s 69 Rs 2,76,00,000 without considering all facts in seized documents. 2.1 The Id CIT Appeal further erred

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

unexplained investment in cash loans on the ground that unaccounted receipts have been taxed earlier and the assesse had funds available for advance of Rs.65,02,600/- made during the year. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.6,57,000/- made on account

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

unexplained investment in cash loans on the ground that unaccounted receipts have been taxed earlier and the assesse had funds available for advance of Rs.65,02,600/- made during the year. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.6,57,000/- made on account

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

investment\nof property amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- and 69C i.e., unexplained expenses of\nLIC Premium and initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).\n4. That the impugned additions have been made by the Learned Assessing\nOfficer solely on the basis of certain alleged incriminating material and/or\nloose sheets purportedly recovered during the course of search and seizure\noperations

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

investment\nof property amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- and 69C i.e., unexplained expenses of\nLIC Premium and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).\n4. That the impugned additions have been made by the Learned Assessing\nOfficer solely on the basis of certain alleged incriminating material and/or\nloose sheets purportedly recovered during the course of search and seizure\noperations