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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

properties including agriculture lands of Data family is subject to courts order and above transaction were made subject to rights being accrued by the court order only but remained silent regarding the sale agreements of the land against which such a huge amount of advances have been said to be received by him. He badly failed to furnish any details

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

properties including agriculture lands of Data family is subject to courts order and above transaction were made subject to rights being accrued by the court order only but remained silent regarding the sale agreements of the land against which such a huge amount of advances have been said to be received by him. He badly failed to furnish any details

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

properties including agriculture lands of Data family is subject to courts order and above transaction were made subject to rights being accrued by the court order only but remained silent regarding the sale agreements of the land against which such a huge amount of advances have been said to be received by him. He badly failed to furnish any details

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

properties including agriculture lands of Data family is subject to courts order and above transaction were made subject to rights being accrued by the court order only but remained silent regarding the sale agreements of the land against which such a huge amount of advances have been said to be received by him. He badly failed to furnish any details

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

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)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have

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)

68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per section 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 6 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. 9.3 I have considered the facts

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)

68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per section 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 6 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. 9.3 I have considered the facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is\nopen to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies\non the revenue to show that that income is from any particular source.”\n[2018] 96 taxmann.com 255 (SC) Konark Structural Engineers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT\n“Assessee-company was carrying

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

68 has no application.\nRohini Builders, Nimbus (India) Ltd., and Shankar Industries deal with\ndifferent factual scenarios concerning the scope of proof under Section\n68 of the Act, unexplained share capital, or incomplete evidence of\ncreditors. None of them directly address the specific fact situation of\nrepayment within the same year, making them distinguishable from the\npresent controversy.\nITA Nos.872

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

68 has no application.\n\nRohini Builders, Nimbus (India) Ltd., and Shankar Industries deal with\ndifferent factual scenarios concerning the scope of proof under Section\n68 of the Act, unexplained share capital, or incomplete evidence of\ncreditors. None of them directly address the specific fact situation of\nrepayment within the same year, making them distinguishable from the\npresent controversy

SMT RAMA BAJAJ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition, made by ld. AO and sustained by ld. CIT(A). ” 2. Regarding Ground No. 1, the ld. submitted that the assessee has incurred interest expenses

RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

House property, Business and Other sources. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings ld.AO found that assessee has shown receipt of loan from Smt. Suman Agarwal and Smt. Laxmi Agarwal. To verify the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Enquiry was conducted u/s 133(6) of the Act. 3.2 In the case of depositor Smt. Laxmi

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

section 68 on account of cash deposits could not be made simply on the reason that during the demonetization period, cash deposits vis-à-vis cash sales ratio was higher. If customers during the period of demonetization purchased jewellery in cash which has been duly recorded in the books of account of the Appellant and also tallying with the quantity

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

house property, capital gain, business or profession. 2.2 A combined reading of S. 14 with S. 56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the assessment of an income it must have to be classified under four heads of income as enumerated u/s 14 and if it doesn’t fall under any specific head of income

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, 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. 20 Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur. Finding of ITAT 1. Firstly

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property.\nWhile responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the\nassessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed\ninadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be\nclaimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity,\nstraightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly\nclaimed

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property.\nWhile responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the\nassessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed\ninadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be\nclaimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity,\nstraightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly\nclaimed