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

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

deposit of cash and making\nthe RTGS on 04.03.2016, 18.03.2016, 04.04.2016, 26.05.2016 and\n09.09.2016, many more. Thus, the explanation given by the assessee is\nnot correct. The income declared by the assessee in the year under\nconsideration is only out of house property

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

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

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

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

KISHAN SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

deposit to be unexplained. 2. That both the lower authorities have without appreciating that source of cash funds emanated out of opening cash in hand which was accepted by AO in assessment of proceeding year and from receipts reflected in seized document. 3. That ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well in facts of the case

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

house property situated at 45,\nShakuntlam, Tilawala, Jagatpura, Jaipur out of which it has been claimed that\nthe appellant had availed a sum of Rs.32.00 lacs only for purchase of the said\nhouse property and has referred to the registered sale deed where Rs.32.00\nlacs, has been received from Union Bank of India. On perusal of details filed

RITU DHAKA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: -

house hold expenses for any year from FY 2012-13 to FY 2016-17 and the reasons for withdrawing cash in earlier years which was apparently not utilised but retained as cash in hand for many years, even though the assessee held as many as seven bank accounts. 4.4 In view of the above facts and discussion, it is held

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

cash deposit in the bank account u/s 115BBE @ 60% instead of\ntaxing the same @ 30% by ignoring that section 115BBE substituted by Taxation\nLaws (Second Amendment Act), 2016 which received the assent of President on\n15.12.2016 and made applicable from 01.04.2017 is not applicable to AY 2017-\n18.\n3. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground

PRATIMA PANWAR,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 3(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

house for more than 8 years even though the assessee maintained a bank account. The contention of the assessee that this cash was recorded in her cash book also did not find favour with the Assessing Officer for reason that the assessee is not conducting any business activities and was a salaried employee, not required to maintain cash book. During