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

income will be reduced by this amount accordingly. Further, the AO has made addition under section 69A which is not found to be applicable on the facts of the case. The addition should have been made under section 68

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

addition of unexplained cash deposit as the source of same is fully explained. Further with regard to invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE, at this juncture section is reproduced as under for ready reference— “Tax on income referred to in section 68

SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

additional income of Rs. 6,45,810/- was surrendered during the course of assessment proceedings. The action of the assessee was a bonafide action. The only source of income of the assessee was interest. While computing the income, the learned AO has applied the provision of section 68

GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

additional income of Rs. 6,45,810/- was surrendered during the course of assessment proceedings. The action of the assessee was a bonafide action. The only source of income of the assessee was interest. While computing the income, the learned AO has applied the provision of section 68

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

addition can be made under section 68 of the Act. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decisions are as under :- Mehul V. Vyas vs. Income

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

addition was required to be made in respect of Rs. 6,98,000, which was found to be the cash receipts from the customers and against which delivery of vehicle was made to them.” 4.10. Ld. AO invoked provision of Section 68 in respect of sales. Section 68 deems non-income

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

addition of Rs.2,90,93,500/- made by the AO by applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, it is noted that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts as sales are already part of the income

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)

68 to 69D. For making additions in the said sections, satisfaction has to be recorded by the ld. AO and opinion has to be formed by him for invoking such Sandeep Sethi & Ors. sections.Thereafter, once such sections are involved Assessing Officer can resort to invoking Section 115BBE. A.2. However, in the present case, as regards the income

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)

68 to 69D. For making additions in the said sections, satisfaction has to be recorded by the ld. AO and opinion has to be formed by him for invoking such Sandeep Sethi & Ors. sections.Thereafter, once such sections are involved Assessing Officer can resort to invoking Section 115BBE. A.2. However, in the present case, as regards the income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

addition is not correct to add this advance as income of the assessee under the provision of section 68 of the Act. When

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

addition is not correct to add this advance as income of the assessee under the provision of section 68 of the Act. When

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

addition is not correct to add this advance as income of the assessee under the provision of section 68 of the Act. When

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

addition is not correct to add this advance as income of the assessee under the provision of section 68 of the Act. When

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing officer to\nmake enquiry regarding cash credit. If he is satisfied that these entries are not\ngenuine he has every right to add these as income from other sources. But before\nrejecting the assessee's explanation A.O. must make proper enquiries and in the\nabsence of proper enquiries, addition

PARSHAVNATH ASSOCIATES, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

income. 8.5 Furthermore, at pg. 10, the ld. CIT(A) has stated that S. 115BBE is a machinery provision, whereas Sections 68 and 69 are the charging sections, and the later must be interpreted strictly. There can be no dispute on that proposition; however, making a strict interpretation of the provisions of Sections 68, 69, 69A, and 70, additional

PARSHWANATH BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

income. 8.5 Furthermore, at pg. 10, the ld. CIT(A) has stated that S. 115BBE is a machinery provision, whereas Sections 68 and 69 are the charging sections, and the later must be interpreted strictly. There can be no dispute on that proposition; however, making a strict interpretation of the provisions of Sections 68, 69, 69A, and 70, additional

PRANATI BUILDCON, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT CEN CIR ,KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

income. 4.5 Furthermore, at pg. 14, the ld. CIT(A) has stated that S. 115BBE is a machinery provision, whereas Sections 68 and 69 are the charging sections, and the later must be interpreted strictly. There can be no dispute on that proposition; however, making a strict interpretation of the provisions of Sections 68, 69, 69A, and 70, additional

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,SIKANDARA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

income surrendered during survey operation and the addition made thereupon in the assessment order was not verified as regards the provisions of section 68