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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10. 5.2 Reading the provision of section 68, it becomes clear that the said section is attracted to make addition in respect of unexplained cash credit in following circumstances; 1. Any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee. 2. Such books should be maintained for the relevant previous year. 3. The assessee offers no explanation

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10. 5.2 Reading the provision of section 68, it becomes clear that the said section is attracted to make addition in respect of unexplained cash credit in following circumstances; 1. Any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee. 2. Such books should be maintained for the relevant previous year. 3. The assessee offers no explanation

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10. 5.2 Reading the provision of section 68, it becomes clear that the said section is attracted to make addition in respect of unexplained cash credit in following circumstances; 1. Any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee. 2. Such books should be maintained for the relevant previous year. 3. The assessee offers no explanation

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10. 5.2 Reading the provision of section 68, it becomes clear that the said section is attracted to make addition in respect of unexplained cash credit in following circumstances; 1. Any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee. 2. Such books should be maintained for the relevant previous year. 3. The assessee offers no explanation

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)

23 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur provision of Section 115 BBE should apply on incomes accruing after the law having received assent of the President. 4.33. In the case of Govind Das (1976) 1 SCC 906 (SC), following observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding Section 171(6) of the Income

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

10 of the order. Hon'ble ITAT\nafter considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of Pr. CIT (Central)-3 V/s. M/s. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No.\n68-73/2021 and various other High Courts and decision of Hon'ble\nITAT Vishakhapatnam Bench on identical issue in the case of ACIT\nv/s

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act may be restored. 50. Now, coming to the contentions advanced by the ld CIT DR. It was submitted by the ld CIT DR that the ld AR has contended that approval 44 M/s Singhania University vs. CIT(E) u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act has been granted to it because

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 /

10,000/- on 21.09.2016 and Rs. 5,00,000/ on 21.09.2016 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 28.10.2016. The learned AO has on 28.10.2016. The learned AO has mentioned that in his statement recorded under section 131 on 29.11.20 mentioned that in his statement recorded under section 131 on 29.11.20 mentioned that in his statement recorded under section

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)

10,000/- on 21.09.2016 and Rs. 5,00,000/ on 21.09.2016 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 28.10.2016. The learned AO has on 28.10.2016. The learned AO has mentioned that in his statement recorded under section 131 on 29.11.20 mentioned that in his statement recorded under section 131 on 29.11.20 mentioned that in his statement recorded under section

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

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 Abhay Chordia, Jaipur. 145A makes it's amply clear that the assessee must maintain inventory of sale of good and goods purchase with its valuation. The assessee not maintained the day to day stock register and it should have been furnished before the assessing officer for verification. g) It is also pertinent to mention here that the tranches

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

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

68,705/-\nas they were remained unexplained—However, while completing assessment\nAssessing Officer disallowed 25% of purchases for want of bills and vouchers—\nAssessing Officer also disallowed opening capital shown by assessee in his\ncapital account as no explanation was offered by assessee—There is one more\naddition which was made by assessee is in respect of license fee paid

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

68,705/-\nas they were remained unexplained—However, while completing assessment\nAssessing Officer disallowed 25% of purchases for want of bills and vouchers—\nAssessing Officer also disallowed opening capital shown by assessee in his\ncapital account as no explanation was offered by assessee—There is one more\naddition which was made by assessee is in respect of license fee paid

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

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

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)

10. That being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant prefers an appeal on the grounds mentioned hereunder: - 16 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT GROUNDS OF APPEAL A. Because the demand upheld by Ld. CIT(A) of unsecured loans taken during the year from 53 parties amounting to Rs. 2,01,92,401/- under section 68 of the Income