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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 145(3) of the Act. (vii) It is also observed that the AO has treated the cash deposited in the banks during the demonetization period in demonetized currency as unexplained cash credits u/s 68

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR 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)

deposited out of cash in hand available with the assessee. Entire cash in hand was duly recorded in the books of accounts; the source of cash was from sales made by the assessee out of stock-in-hand available with the assessee and thus there was no occasion to invoke section 68

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. Ld\nAO added Rs.7000000.00 on account of cash deposits on 11.11.20216. When the\nbooks are maintained and cash

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR NOWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

cash deposited in demonetized currency as arising out of unexplained sources(as against the accepted position in the past and the subsequent periods) and is to somehow trigger the provisions of section 115BBE read with section 68

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)

deposited by the assessee was received against cash sales during the period 1.10.2016 to 8.11.2016. 2. ASSESSING OFFICER 2.1. Ld. AO, for the sole reason of assessee not having complete details of cash sales, disbelieved the said cash sales. Ld. AO invoked the provisions of Section 68

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

Section 68 for the cash deposited in the bank, generated from the sales made in cash. Additions made by the ld. AO were

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)

deposits. Further regarding the ground of 115BBE and Penalty section 271AAc of the I.T.Act the decision is as under.- Justified Addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE:  Section 115BBE applies to additions made u/s unexplained income at a higher rate (60% + ge/cess) 68, taxing  The cash

SITARAM BADRI NARAIN MAWAWALE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credit (Cash deposit) – Assessment year 2017-18 – Assessee had made cash

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)

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

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)

68,200/- However, no such huge cash deposits has been done by the appellant. at once during the entire year. The appellant also has not stated any reasons as to why the cash deposits are done on various dates throughout the year when he had all the cash available with him at once 3. The submission of the cash book

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)

68 and 69A of the Act and tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the addition of Rs. 6,76,59,000/- on account of cash deposited

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

deposited in the appellant's bank account in the form of SBNs during the\ndemonetization period.\n3.4.24 The appellant's last contention is that provisions of section 68 are not\napplicable to his case for the reason that credits by way of sales are part of\ntrading account of the appellant and section 68 is only applicable on cash

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 on the ground that bank\npass book is not books u/s 68 of the Act. The appellant is into regular business\nand it is not the case of the appellant that this transaction of cash deposit

ACIT, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE vs. BALVIR SINGH TOMAR, ADARSH NAGAR

68", "Section 115BBE", "Section 143(3)", "Section 145(3)"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

cash credit under section 68. 20 ITA 433/JP/2023 BALAJI JEWELLERS VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR (e) The AO has made addition by invoking the provision of section 68. The precondition for invoking section 68 is that there has to be credit of amount in the books maintained by the assessee. [CIT vs P. Mohanakala

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 69A in respect of Cash deposits and then dropped the same and eventually added entire cash deposits u/s 68

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68: The onus to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and it failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount of Rs.1,78,08,630/- which is cash deposited in the bank during the period of demonetization is considered as unexplained cash credits and therefore, provisions of section

MUKESH SONI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 is not applicable in this case because there are 1. proper entries in the books of accounts including stock register in relation to cash sale, cash balance, cash deposit