INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR NOWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

House [2010 (4) TMI 1070 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 1110 - AHMEDABAD HIGH COURT] 2) ITAT Delhi in Argon Global Pvt Ltd vs ACIT CC-28, Delhi ITA No 3741-3746/Del/2019 order dated 31/10/2019 case Law Paper Book Page No 258-321. Finding of ITAT 1. Firstly, ITAT observed that both the Assessing

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

House Property and Other Sources. c. From the above details it can be understood that the appellant is not into the business activity three years prior to impugned FY 2016-17. The assessee placed reliance heavily on the cash in hand reflected in the FY 2012-13. No proofs are shown by the appellant in the form of bank account

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

House ITA No. 613/2010 decided by Delhi High Court on 09.04.2010 In the facts of above case cash of Rs.24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that nexus of such deposit was not establish with any source of income. The assessee claimed that it was duly recorded in the books

AJAY BAIRAGI,KOTA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

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

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

house property and also has income from business and profession to the tune of Rs.10,70,000/-, as a remuneration received from Shivam Polishing LLP. The assessee also received profit from Shivam Polishing LLP to the tune of Rs.12,73,620/-. The assessee also submitted the detail of cash deposited

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property which had been auctioned, and to know what were the\nterms and conditions of the auction. No copy of any document relating to the sale\ninstance was furnished by the Appropriate Authority to the appellant along with the\nnotice, or at any time whatsoever....There is no doubt in our minds that on both counts\nthere has been

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

cash deposits in two bank accounts - Legal tender money in demonetization of currency - AO culled out, the deposits that was made of bank notes that were declared as not legal tender owing to demonetization of currency - HELD THAT: - Both AO and CIT(A) accepted the fact that the cash receipts are nothing but sale proceeds in the business

AKSHAT LOYALKA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-C-(101)(1), JAIPUR

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

cash available and in absence of any evidence of utilization thereof\nelsewhere, the same was deposited in the bank.\nGOA 4: Application of Sec. 115BBE – invalid\n1.1 Invoking Sec.115BBE of the Act is without jurisdiction:The ld. AO Vaguely invoked\nSec.115BBE of theAct absolutely without any discussion. On merits, there is absolutely\nno case made out by AO to invoke

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

House (Supra) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. (supra),Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld.” 4.2 Further assessee admittedly produced sales bills, cash book and all books of account which have not been rejected. The sales

NISHA BHRADWAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3 (3), JAIPUR

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

deposits has been worked out, which cannot be explained out of the earlier cash withdrawals at all. This amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is clearly taxable as unexplained money under the provisions of section 69A. Further, the provisions of Section 115BBE are squarely applicable to the case of the appellant and it is held that the said provisions have been

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

deposit of cash and making the RTGS on 04.03.2016, 18.03.2016, 04.04.2016, 26.05.2016 and 09.09.2016, many more. Thus, the explanation given by the assessee is not correct. The income declared by the assessee in the year under consideration is only out of house property

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)

House (Supra) and the Hon’ble 24 Rukmani Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. (supra),Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld.” Further assessee admittedly produced sales bills, cash book and all books of account which

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

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

cash was paid. Thus, these various issues have not been examined. He further noted that rebate u/s 6 Bhartesh Jain vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur 24(b) for interest paid of Rs. 1,55,587/- was claimed on housing loan for self occupied house property situated at 53. Siyaram Nagar, Shyopur Road, Sanganer. However, perusal of bank loan certificate shows

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

cash deposits. He neither found any concrete and conclusive evidence of back dating of the entries of sale, evidence of bogus sales, evidence of bogus purchases, and non-existing cash in the books of account. Thus ld. AO has not brought any material on record to establish that the sale bills are bogus nor any evidence indicating that such sales

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)

house and reasons behind it is very simple that mostly jewellers are not familiar with the computers and their equipment that is why such work is assigned to the accountant and accountant who do part time accounting usually carry their employers work from shop to his home and finish it in late hours so that he can engage in more

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

cash of Rs. 3.15 crore was sourced and was ultimately deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee. It is further noted that during the festive season of Deepawali from 27-10-2016 to 30-10- 2016 the assessee had made significant cash sales of Rs. 1,01,47,305/-. Moreover, the assessee has regularly made cash sales during

SMT. RAJNI GUTPA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

cash deposit in the bank account u/s 115BBE @ 60% instead of taxing the same @ 30% by ignoring that section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment Act), 2016 which received the assent of President on 15.12.2016 and made applicable from 01.04.2017 is not applicable to AY 2017- 18. 3. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground

DINESH KUMAR SONI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' Held, yes. [Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2002] 120 Taxman 11 (Gujarat)/[2001] 247 ITR 290 (Gujarat)/[2001] 165 CTR 111 (Gujarat) [10-08-2000]]. In the judgements referred by the appellant, the above referred judgements

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

House (ITA No.613/2010). In the facts of above case, a cash of Rs. 24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that nexus of such deposit was not establish with any source of income. The assessee claimed that it was duly recorded in the books of account