ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments are pending in statutory hierarchy

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)

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess as applicable). It is also proposed to provide that no deduction

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)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent; and (b) The amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). 10 Sanjay Lunia vs.ITO (2) Not withstanding anything contained

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)

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess) without allowing any deduction

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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 /

section 68 on income of Rs. 6,45,810/- surrendered by the assessee in revised computation which is again illegal and deserves to be deleted. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee came to know that his earlier counsel has inadvertently claimed deduction

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)

section 68 on income of Rs. 6,45,810/- surrendered by the assessee in revised computation which is again illegal and deserves to be deleted. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee came to know that his earlier counsel has inadvertently claimed deduction

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd had deducted

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd had deducted

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, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction

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, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 68 of the I.T. Act 1. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 124-128 E. CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A, which was necessary for the disposal of the case, when there was justified and reasonable cause for not producing the same before

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 of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 no deduction in respect of nay expenditure

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), KOTA , RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. HITKARI VIDYALAYA SHAKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI LIMITED, BHATAPARA, KOTA

deduction claimed by the\nassessee for an amount of Rs. 1,45,12,666/- as per provision of section\n80P(2)(d) of the Act. The assessee in the assessment proceeding\ncontended that they have received a sum of Rs. 6,68