KAILASH CHAND MEENA,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property, agriculture, other source. He has filed his ITR on dt. 13.06.2017 declaring the total income of Rs.4,02,330/-. In this case the ld. AO has issued the notice u/s 143(2) on dt. 24.09.2018 on the reason “ cash deposited during the demonetization

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

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

demonetization of Rs. 16,65,000/- Since, the source of cash deposits of Rs 16,65,000/- has not been explained and no documentary evidences filed till date. The assessee has not responded to notice u/s 142(1) and show cause notices issued during assessment proceedings. The assessee failed to give any explanation about the nature and source of cash

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 let out to students, and interest on his Saving Account. It is noted from the assessment order that the assessee has e-filed his return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 26-12-2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,0,03,580/- which was processed

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

PADAM CHAND GOYAL,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S.Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalpadam Chand Goyal, M/S. Rajasthan Glass House, Shivaji Market, Old Station Road, Alwar, Alwar 301001 Pan No.: Abqpg 6342N ...... Appellant Vs.

house property and interest. During the demonetization period the assessee deposited Rs. 16 Lacs in his two bank accounts with

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

demonetization period is not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. Therefore, the appellant was issued show cause notice on 29-12-2023 as per provisions of section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant furnished reply on 03- 01- 2024. The appellant mainly argued in the reply that

SANGA AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 7,, 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)

House property is hereby confirmed. The relevant grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed. 6.2 The AO has treated cash deposit of 1,58,70,374/- made during the demonetization

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property and other sources etc. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 5-07- 2018 which was duly served. In response to notice issued u/s 153A, the assessee furnished his return of income on 20-11-2018 declaring total income of Rs.23,67,710/-.It is also noted that earlier the assessee

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property and other sources etc. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 5-07- 2018 which was duly served. In response to notice issued u/s 153A, the assessee furnished his return of income on 20-11-2018 declaring total income of Rs.23,67,710/-.It is also noted that earlier the assessee

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

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

House Property Income and\nIncome from Other Sources. The proceedings of assessment of\nincome were initiated by issuing of notices u/s 143(2) of the Act on\n08.08.2019 & 142(1) of the Act on 03-09-2019 and served online\non the e-mail of the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) dated 03-09-2019\nwas issued to the assessee

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

demonetization period without appreciating the fact that the assesse himself has deposited his unaccounted cash in bank accounts of labourers and subsequently withdrawn the amount from their bank accounts. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs 7,08,500/- made on account

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

demonetization period without appreciating the fact that the assesse himself has deposited his unaccounted cash in bank accounts of labourers and subsequently withdrawn the amount from their bank accounts. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs 7,08,500/- made on account

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

houses etc for the buyers during the relevant previous years. The said table shows the utilization/availability of the funds under different heads of the asset/expenditure etc and their nature also suggest that the additional income was related to/arose during the course of the real estate business only. The investment/ outgoing is clearly identifiable with the regular stock, cash, construction

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)

demonetization. He has considered the five times of sales to the average sale as genuine and thereby derived sales as acceptable for an amount of Rs. 19,32,490/- [ Rs. 3,86,498/- average sales * 5 times based on the explanation ] and thereby he hold balance amount of Rs. 12,90,178/- [ 32,22,668 less

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

house property income. The Id. AO after perusing return of income of past year noted that the assessee discontinued business of jewellery. Further on examination of detailed filed by the assessee the Id. AO noted that the assessee has sold some gold jewellery stock to Shri Ratan Lal Agarwal. The assessee has not shown any income on this sale. Thus

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

House Property, remuneration from partnership firm, short term capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

House Property, remuneration from partnership firm, short term capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring

SUNIL KOTHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX.), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property at Mumbai and interest income from his NRO/NRE Bank A/c. The assessee maintains accounts on computer for his affairs in India and prepares yearly Balance Sheet etc.The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 computing total income of Rs. 88,407/- and therefrom claimed deduction u/s 80C of Rs. 88,407/- and thus declaring