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)

10- 13) and submitted approval of the NHAI (PB 55) evidencing the genuineness of the transaction. • Addition of Rs 6,26,68,011 has resulted in double addition as the Appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

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

10-11-2016 to 31-12-2016. The copy of cash book from the period 01-11-2016 to 31-12-2016 is at paper book page 54-60. The assessee surrendered Rs. 15 Lakh before D.D.I.T Kota under P.M.G.K.Y scheme just to purchase the peace of mind so the lower authorities treated

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 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

section 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

section 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

section 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

26 M/s Singhania University vs. CIT(E) 1956 which empowers the Appellant University under Section 22 of the UGC Act to grant degrees in all courses of education and impart education in all courses of education. It is respectfully submitted that the UGC Act, being a specific statute governing the universities in the country and being a Central

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)

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. In the circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.16,52,000/- made by ld. AO without appreciating the details and evidences filed, deserves to be deleted

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 /

26 ITR 775 SC 40 I Omar Saha 37 ITR 151 (SC) Further It is submitted that the learned AO has made the addition under section 69A of the income tax Act 961 which is wrong as the provisions of section 69 A is not applicable upon the assessee. As noted supra the assessee is not maintaining

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)

26 ITR 775 SC 40 I Omar Saha 37 ITR 151 (SC) Further It is submitted that the learned AO has made the addition under section 69A of the income tax Act 961 which is wrong as the provisions of section 69 A is not applicable upon the assessee. As noted supra the assessee is not maintaining

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

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 Act. The cash deposits being SBNs in bank accounts of the assessee during demonetization period amounting to Rs. 6,76,59,000 are unexplained and alternatively taxable under section 69A of the Act. At the same time, since the sales are found to be bogus to that extent, Rs. 6,76,59,000 shall be reduced

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

Bench: Him.

26,71,165/- 1,10,000/- 8/11/2016 53,10,622/- - 13/11/2016 53,10,622/- 50,00,000/- Ld. AO from the above chart observed that despite having a considerable amount of cash in hand on different dates, assessee had deposited a meager amount in comparison to what was claimed to be available cash on hand; that the assessee had hardly

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 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. 1,26,72,500/- which is cash deposited in the bank during the period of demonetization is considered as unexplained cash credits……” Findings of the Ld. CIT(A): (Para 7 on Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

10.\n5. In view of the above provisions of section 68 of the Act and specifically\nreferring the first proviso reads as under:\n\"The person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also\noffers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited.\"\nIn view of the above

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

10.\n5. In view of the above provisions of section 68 of the Act and specifically\nreferring the first proviso reads as under:\n\"The person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also\noffers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited.\"\nIn view of the above