RAJASTHAN STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT-CERCLE 6, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

penalty of Rs. 6,04,19,802/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing. 8. As the issue involved in this appeal also is identical to what we have

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

demonetization period, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.2,07,20,000/- in the bank account of M/s Vaishali Enterprises. Upon conducting a survey under Section 133A, it was discovered that the assessee had made abnormal cash sales on 08.11.2016 However, the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the source of cash deposits amounting

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

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

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

demonetization out of cash withdrawals and cash savings. Thus, the action is bad in law, thus order deserves to be quashed. 5. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred by sustaining the demand of Rs. 81,678/- as salary income without considering FORM GA-55A. 6. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

MAHAVIR SONI,KISHANGARH, DIST. AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), ALWAR

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

penalty of Rs.3,87,000/- levied u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act”) for the Assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 30 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

271 AAC were initiated as the AO opined that the appellant had\nincome from an undisclosed sources u/s.69A of the IT Act. Since the penalty\nproceedings initiated were backed by valid reasons, this ground of appeal is\ndismissed. Further, Penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty if any will be\nlevied by the AO by a separate order. Therefore, this ground

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)

demonetization, which was not the case of the assessee. Each of the aforementioned contentions are elaborated hereunder. A. Invocation of Section 68,69 etc, sine qua non for invocation of Section 115BBE A.1. Section 115BBE refers to the income under Section 68 to 69D. Provisions of Section 115BBE can be invoked only when addition has been made under Section

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)

demonetization, which was not the case of the assessee. Each of the aforementioned contentions are elaborated hereunder. A. Invocation of Section 68,69 etc, sine qua non for invocation of Section 115BBE A.1. Section 115BBE refers to the income under Section 68 to 69D. Provisions of Section 115BBE can be invoked only when addition has been made under Section

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

271 AAC of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 424/JPR/2025 1. That the Id CIT(A)-NFAC have erred in law as well in facts of the case is dismissing the appeal owing

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

271 AAC of the Income Tax Act. 2 3 That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 424/JPR/2025 1. That the Id CIT(A)-NFAC have erred in law as well in facts of the case is dismissing the appeal

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

271 AAC of the Income Tax Act. 3 That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 424/JPR/2025 That the Id CIT(A)-NFAC have erred in law as well in facts of the case 1. is dismissing the appeal owing

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

271 AAC of the Income Tax Act. 3 That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 424/JPR/2025 That the Id CIT(A)-NFAC have erred in law as well in facts of the case 1. is dismissing the appeal owing

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

271 AAC of the Income Tax Act. 3 That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 424/JPR/2025 That the Id CIT(A)-NFAC have erred in law as well in facts of the case 1. is dismissing the appeal owing

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

271 AAC of the Income Tax Act. 3 That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 424/JPR/2025 That the Id CIT(A)-NFAC have erred in law as well in facts of the case 1. is dismissing the appeal owing

JEENKRIPA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED,VAISHALI NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

Demonetization period represented income from undisclosed sources. The assessee company has concealed its true income which otherwise is taxable. Further by relying upon the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the cases cited above that there was ample evidence that Cash was deposited on bank accounts, what is prima facie evidence against the assessee that the deposits are undisclosed Income

S R AGRO TECH,BEHROR vs. ITO, WARD, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC of the Act in respect of unexplained income is initiated. As discussed in the body of the Order. [Addition of Rs. 31,39,000/-] 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that in spite of various notices, the assessee had not furnished any reply

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)

demonetization - Addition Rs. 1,53,76,500/- Unexplained cash Receipts – addition Rs. 10,00,000/- Thus the total income of the assessee in the status of individual for the assessment year 2017-18 is assessed by the AO at Rs.6,35,03,480/- u/s 144 read with section 153A of the Act. In first appeal

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)

demonetization - Addition Rs. 1,53,76,500/- Unexplained cash Receipts – addition Rs. 10,00,000/- Thus the total income of the assessee in the status of individual for the assessment year 2017-18 is assessed by the AO at Rs.6,35,03,480/- u/s 144 read with section 153A of the Act. In first appeal

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2017-18 to 2018-19 (as applicable) is leviable in these cases. The levy of penalty is considered separately in this order.” Thus the Hon’ble Settlement Commission has also, in principle, accepted that