DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GODAWARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

reassessing the completed assessment. Assessee’s appeal fails in Gr No 1. 3.2 Ground No. 2 & 3: “Regarding addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by applying the provisions of section 56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the share capital and premium thereon received from various companies as income of the assessee.” 3.2.1 Submission made: Relevant extracts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Unexplained Share Application Money o During reassessment, the AO identified unexplained share application money amounting to ₹90,00,385/- under

RATIKA KUMBHAT,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

Unexplained moneys (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2020-21 - Assessing Officer issued on assessee-company a notice under section 148A(b) intimating

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

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

Unexplained money, arbitrarily. 3.1. That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.74,51,800/- made by ld. AO on the basis of some ledger copy alleged to have been found during the course of search conducted in some other case namely Veto Group. Appellant prays that assessee is not associated with Veto Group

UMA SHANKER SHARMA,VRINDAVAN, MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 2, ITO WD TWO, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 and is deemed to be the income of the assessee for the AY 2012-13. 5 Uma Shanker Sharma vs.ITO 4. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After perusing the submissions of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

reassessment framework.\nIII. Assessee’s Failure to Justify Transactions\n1. Unexplained Share Application Money\n- During reassessment, the AO identified

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

reassessment framework.\nIII. Assessee’s Failure to Justify Transactions\n1. Unexplained Share Application Money\no During reassessment, the AO identified

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

money u/s 69A of the Act. And made the addition of Rs.52,54,225/- u/s 69A. 6.The ld. AO further stated that It is also noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee, purchased mutual fund of Rs. 7,50,000/- but failed in furnishing documentary evidence substantiating the source of the same. Therefore, in absence to supporting documentary

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

money u/s 69A of the Act. And made the addition of Rs.52,54,225/- u/s 69A. 6.The ld. AO further stated that It is also noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee, purchased mutual fund of Rs. 7,50,000/- but failed in furnishing documentary evidence substantiating the source of the same. Therefore, in absence to supporting documentary

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

reassessment framework.\n\nIII. Assessee’s Failure to Justify Transactions\n\n1. Unexplained Share Application Money\n• During reassessment, the AO identified

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

unexplained money as per provision of section 69A of the Act. DCIT vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. 6. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: Ground No. 1 5.2 I have

MAJESTIC STOCK PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained share application money was made u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, it is not a case that the matter relating to Maxius Ventures Ltd was not examined by the Assessing officer during the course of reassessment

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

money" on these transactions @ Rs. 250 per sq. yard from the parties which is his undisclosed income. Further, at question no. 10 he admitted that he received brokerage/commission @ 20 per sq. yard on the allotment of land in aforesaid residential scheme. In the appeal the appellant has contended that in his statement, the assessee has not deposed that

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

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

unexplained money. 4. Feeling dissatisfied from the finding of the ld.AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The relevant findings of the ld.CIT(A) is reproduced here in below:- “In the light of the above mentioned ratios when one examines the reasons behind the re- opening it emerges that the bank account of the assessee witnessed