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)

69A r.w.s 115BBE The applicability of section 115BBE is not automatic. It is also pertinent to mention here before applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act the specific show caused notice did not give to the assessee and in absence of specific show cause notice the provisions of this section cannot be applied mechanically. Reliance is placed

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

69A of the Act being the income from other sources. Therefore, subjected income has essentially to be classified u/s 14 of the Act as income from other sources and that is possible only when the income is not capable of being classified under any other head being income from salary, house property, capital gain, business or profession. 2.2 A combined

PREM LATA PANDYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1471/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2019-20 Prem Lata Pandya बनाम Deputy Commissioner of 302, Raj Mension, D-299, Vs. Income Tax, Tulsi Marg Bani Park, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.:ACXPJ9951A निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Sh. S.L.Poddar, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2019-20, thus the AO had correctly applied section 1158BE of the IT Act, 1961. Considering the above discussion, the AO had made correctly applied the section 115BBE for taxing the addition made on account of seized cash of Rs 24 lakh as the source of cash remains unexplained

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

property & no confirmation on record to show that the seller has received the sum for the transaction recorded on that material. In absence of supporting evidence as regard to the ownership of the transactions, the AO failed to add the sum of Rs 1,44,35,000/- as unexplained investment of assessee u/s 69 consequently, liable to be taxed

MILESTONE DEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house, etc. whereas the work order relates to civil work of the buildings only. Further, the appellant didn't exactly pin-point about mentioning of these works inclusion in work order. Also, the DOV has valued each & every work separately and the appellant didn't demonstrate that cost of these expenses are included more than once in the valuation made

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

House property and income under the head Business. 4.1 During the course of assessment proceeding various defects in the books of account of the assessee were found for A. Y. 2011-12 to 2017-18. The assessing officer has recorded his finding on the aspect of the inventory register, valuation method adopted, maintaining the mix stock

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

House property and income under the head Business. 4.1 During the course of assessment proceeding various defects in the books of account of the assessee were found for A. Y. 2011-12 to 2017-18. The assessing officer has recorded his finding on the aspect of the inventory register, valuation method adopted, maintaining the mix stock

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

Property Developer Pvt. Ltd. order dated 30.07.2019. The ld. CIT(A) has not speak a single word on theses issue and submission, which show he either has satisfied with our plea or he is not having anything to rebut our contention. Hence the assessment order is liable to be quashed on this ground. 2. Wrongly Interpreted that assessee has considered

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating

MUKESH KUMAR SARAOGI,CHURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

house loan of Rs. 1,43,619/-." [Emphasis Supplied] 1. Accordingly, the provisions of section 115BBE were not invoked. Returned Income was accepted and resultantly no demand was raised. 2. The conscious call, of not assessing surrendered income as per the provisions of section 69/69A/698 and, accordingly, not applying the provisions of section 115BBE, is evident from the fact that

MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,CHURU vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house property and other source 3 Mahendra Kumar Sharma vs. PCIT being interest from saving bank account, FDR and income declared during the survey. The case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 on 29.09.2020 and the same was duly acknowledged by the assessee. Accordingly, notice

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

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

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)

sections 69, 69A, 698 and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

properties, whose annual income came to about Rs. 6,000 according to the assessee, it had no known source of income in India, until it started the toddy business on August 17, 1950. Nor is there any material in the case even to raise a reasonable suspicion that the assessee indulged in any activity of an income-earning nature

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)

Section 69A. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts of the case i) by treating the cash deposit of Rs. 2499800/- during 01/4/2016 to 31/10/2016 out of the opening cash balance as on 01/4/2016 as 'explained", ii) by treating the cash deposit of Rs. 1522500/- during 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016 as unexplained