DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GURU PRAGYA INFRA (P) LTD., JAIPUR

68,155/-. This deduction was revised in assessment proceeding to Rs.1,41,53,488/- but restricted to Rs.1,08,11,680/- i.e. to the extent of available profit. 4. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction for the reason that assessee has not fulfilled the following conditions prescribed u/s 80- IB(10):- (i) As per section 80-IB(10

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

10,11,12 and 13 of the appeal of the assessee where the addition u/s 68 of the act has been made by the Id CIT (A) enhancing income of the assessee holding that sale 14 Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT consideration received by the assessee on sale of property is chargeable

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 of I.T. Act, 1961). 10. While making the assessment order the assessing officer has also added a sum of Rs. 12,46,718/- as bogus agricultural income for the year under consideration. The relevant observation of the assessing and submission on this issue is extracted here in below for the sake of brevity Bogus agricultural income claimed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 of I.T. Act, 1961). 10. While making the assessment order the assessing officer has also added a sum of Rs. 12,46,718/- as bogus agricultural income for the year under consideration. The relevant observation of the assessing and submission on this issue is extracted here in below for the sake of brevity Bogus agricultural income claimed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 of I.T. Act, 1961). 10. While making the assessment order the assessing officer has also added a sum of Rs. 12,46,718/- as bogus agricultural income for the year under consideration. The relevant observation of the assessing and submission on this issue is extracted here in below for the sake of brevity Bogus agricultural income claimed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 of I.T. Act, 1961). 10. While making the assessment order the assessing officer has also added a sum of Rs. 12,46,718/- as bogus agricultural income for the year under consideration. The relevant observation of the assessing and submission on this issue is extracted here in below for the sake of brevity Bogus agricultural income claimed

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)

10 of the order. Hon'ble ITAT after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT (Central)-3 V/s. M/s. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No. 68-73/2021 and various other High Courts and decision of Hon'ble ITAT Vishakhapatnam Bench on identical issue in the case of ACIT

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

section 68 of the Income\nTax Act and therefore in the assessment completed addition of Rs. 1,73,56,000/-\nis made.\n3.4.12 Accordingly, the A.O. referred to provision u/s 68 of the I. T. Act and also\nrelied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Durga\nPrasad More

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)

10. It is submitted that when the assessee made cash sales, the amended provisions of section 115BBE were not in existence. 11. Where an amendment, as under 92B, although was introduced having a retrospective effect, was held by the courts, to have a prospective effect, by the same analogy, an amendment to Section 115BBE, putting an additional burden

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section (2) of section 288 and furnish along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year, the report of such audit in the prescribed form14 duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed:] 15[Provided also that any amount of donation received by the fund or institution

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)

10 Sanjay Lunia vs.ITO (2) Not withstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1)." The real purpose of introducing this provision was to charge higher

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)

68 does not require that the amount is to be owned by the Assessee. It only deals with any amount shown in the books of accounts of the assessee whereas Section 69A deals with money, etc., owned by the assessee and found in his possession. – d) Riveria Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITA No. 250/Mum/2013

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 /

68 does not require that the amount is to be owned by the Assessee. It only deals with any amount shown in the books of accounts of the assessee whereas Section 69A deals with money, etc., owned by the assessee and found in his possession. – d) Riveria Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITA No. 250/Mum/2013

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

10(23C)(iiiad), which is illegal and now it is\nthe settled legal position of law that if no addition on the reasons recorded has\nbeen made then no other addition or disallowance or denial of exemption or\nclaim or deduction can be made, for this kindly refer following decisions:\n(a) In the case of CIT vs. Shri

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

10(23C)(iiiad), which is illegal and now it is\nthe settled legal position of law that if no addition on the reasons recorded has\nbeen made then no other addition or disallowance or denial of exemption or\nclaim or deduction can be made, for this kindly refer following decisions:\n(a) In the case of CIT vs. Shri

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)

10. Ld. CIT(A) upheld invocation of Section 115BBE by the ld. AO. 2. SUBMISSIONS 2.1. Apropos invocation of Section 115BBE by the ld. AO and upheld by ld. CIT(A), as regards the income surrendered by the assessee, during search, amounting to Rs. 89,05,480, and also accepted by the lower authorities, following submissions are made

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)

10. Ld. CIT(A) upheld invocation of Section 115BBE by the ld. AO. 2. SUBMISSIONS 2.1. Apropos invocation of Section 115BBE by the ld. AO and upheld by ld. CIT(A), as regards the income surrendered by the assessee, during search, amounting to Rs. 89,05,480, and also accepted by the lower authorities, following submissions are made

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 under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as per the discussion