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

disallowances of expenses while completing the assessment under section 143(3) whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) invoked the powers to enhance the assessment by rejecting the books of account and consequently the income of the assessee was enhanced by applying the G.P. rate to estimate the income of the assessee. Therefore, it is clear that the said issue and aspect

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 in respect of unexplained cash credit (not covered in Limited Scrutiny) and certain expenses were disallowed (covered by Limited Scrutiny). As the ld.AO initiated enquiries on the issues which were outside the purview of limited scrutiny, even prior to converting the case to Complete Scrutiny, hon’ble ITAT held that the order passed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 is not justified. It is noticed that over and above the peak credit, the AO has further made an addition of Rs. 52.40.137/- on account of debtors exceeding the creditors. We have found that the peak determined by the AO is not correct, otherwise also, when once peak amount has been added then no separate addition is required

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 is not justified. It is noticed that over and above the peak credit, the AO has further made an addition of Rs. 52.40.137/- on account of debtors exceeding the creditors. We have found that the peak determined by the AO is not correct, otherwise also, when once peak amount has been added then no separate addition is required

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 is not justified. It is noticed that over and above the peak credit, the AO has further made an addition of Rs. 52.40.137/- on account of debtors exceeding the creditors. We have found that the peak determined by the AO is not correct, otherwise also, when once peak amount has been added then no separate addition is required

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 is not justified. It is noticed that over and above the peak credit, the AO has further made an addition of Rs. 52.40.137/- on account of debtors exceeding the creditors. We have found that the peak determined by the AO is not correct, otherwise also, when once peak amount has been added then no separate addition is required

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)

68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the income of the assessee. Also expenses claimed related to the receipt from DRAIPL are not explained therefore 10% of the proportionate expenses that is 2,65,36,577 is disallowed

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)

68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the income of the assessee. Also expenses claimed related to the receipt from DRAIPL are not explained therefore 10% of the proportionate expenses that is 2,65,36,577 is disallowed

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 Act in respect of the unsecured loan taken during the year from 53 parties for which the Appellant could not furnish the balance confirmation on the ground that the Appellant had failed to explain the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions of such unsecured loan and further made an addition on account of disallowance

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 of the Act. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decisions are as under :- Mehul V. Vyas vs. Income Tax Officer 164 ITR 296 Income Tax Officer vs. Kamal Kumar Mishra 143 ITD 686 (Lucknow) 4 Shri Rajesh Chachwani, Jaiupr. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the income surrendered by the assessee is income from other sources

RAYS POWER EXPERTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

disallowance. 10. Additional Legal Ground: (Before Hon'ble ITAT) The learned AO has erred in wrongly invoking the amended provisions of section 115BBE in 3 Rays Power Experts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT respect of addition of Rs 1,25,84,000/-made under section 68

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)

68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per section 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 6 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. 9.3 I have considered the facts

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)

68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per section 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 6 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. 9.3 I have considered the facts

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.1,71,69,480/- under section 43B of the Act. On\nperusal of the Form 3CA in column no. 26(i) (B) (b) wherein it is mentioned that\namount of Rs.1,68

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.1,71,69,480/- under section 43B of the Act. On\nperusal of the Form 3CA in column no. 26(i) (B) (b) wherein it is mentioned that\namount of Rs.1,68

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.1,71,69,480/- under section 43B of the Act. On\nperusal of the Form 3CA in column no. 26(i) (B) (b) wherein it is mentioned that\namount of Rs.1,68

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 68 of the Act. With respect to disallowance of an amount of Rs. 12,63,307/-, being 25% of expenses

RIDHIRAJ BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, NCRB, JAIPUR

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

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

68 and tax was computed on such surrendered income 30% by applying provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The assessee firm incurred a business loss of Rs 11,85,300.00 during the year under consideration. The AO neither disputed the loss of Rs 11,85,300.00 during assessment proceedings nor disallowed