SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 treatings deposits of SBNs found in its bank\naccount as unexplained credit in hands of assessee Held, yes [Paras 70 to 77] [In\nfavour of revenue]\"\nThe relevant paras from the order are as under:-\n\"72. Furthermore, the conduct of the assessee was abnormal and it had caused\nimmense harm to well intention notification

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

section pertaining to the date after 15.12.2016. The amendment provisions are not retrospective in operation and are not applicable in the present case and therefore the ld. CIT(A) has been wrongly taxed the addition made u/s 68 of the Act by applying the amended provisions. a.3.(ix) In support of our submission given in paras hereinabove the reliance

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10(1) was rightly denied and same was treated as income from the other sources.” 33. On going through the bunch of evidence where in the holding of land is as much as 230 vighas are in possession and the assessee has placed on records the accounts of the agricultural income, corroborated this income with the seized bills related

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10(1) was rightly denied and same was treated as income from the other sources.” 33. On going through the bunch of evidence where in the holding of land is as much as 230 vighas are in possession and the assessee has placed on records the accounts of the agricultural income, corroborated this income with the seized bills related

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10(1) was rightly denied and same was treated as income from the other sources.” 33. On going through the bunch of evidence where in the holding of land is as much as 230 vighas are in possession and the assessee has placed on records the accounts of the agricultural income, corroborated this income with the seized bills related

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10(1) was rightly denied and same was treated as income from the other sources.” 33. On going through the bunch of evidence where in the holding of land is as much as 230 vighas are in possession and the assessee has placed on records the accounts of the agricultural income, corroborated this income with the seized bills related

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 Copy of the order of High Court of 310-315 Rajasthan in the case of Smt. Harshita Chordia 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan) 8. The ld. DR is heard who read and relied on the relevant findings of the lower authorities and also on the report of the ld. AO bearing dated 03.03.2023 the same is reproduced here in below

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

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

10,000/-\nKhandelwal Impex\n29.03.2017\nGold Bars\n242.500\n7,00,000/-\nSita Ram & Sons\nJewellers\n03.12.2016\nGold\nOrnaments\n27.150 Grams\n85,000/-\nShrinath Enterprise\n17.11.2016\nGold Bar 995\n100 Grams\n3,00,000/-\nShrinath Enterprise\n21.11.2016\nGold Bar 995\n200 Grams\n6,00,000/-\nShrinath Enterprise\n21.11.2016\nGold bar 995\n300 Grams\n9,00,000/-\nTotal

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10(23C)(vi). 6.3 As the medical courses are being run by the university without any legal authority, it cannot be held as genuine courses and once the courses itself are held not as genuine, the hospital cannot be held part of the educational courses. As the university is running a hospital, it cannot be held to be existing solely

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

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

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

Bench: Him.

37,95,560 under Section 68 for the cash deposited in the bank, generated from the sales made in cash. Additions made by the ld. AO were upheld by the NFAC. 2. SUBMISSIONS 2.1. Written submissions as filed by the assessee before the NFAC, which are also reproduced by the NFAC in its order from Pages 2 to 10

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. While making the addition ld. AO relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 32 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-VI Vs. T. S. Kishan & Co. Ltd., [2014] 50 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi). This decision deals with the share capital credit

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)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

37,00,000/- under Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. Reject plea for peak credit, unabsorbed depreciation, and MAT credit set-off. The ld. DR vide submission dated 14.07.2025 further submitted as under : I. Limitation Period Under Section 149(1)(b) is Fully Alive The assessee has contended that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. However, this contention