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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

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 /

100 = Rs. 6,45,810/-], ld. AO taxed that differential amount as undisclosed income as per provision of section 68

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)

100 = Rs. 6,45,810/-], ld. AO taxed that differential amount as undisclosed income as per provision of section 68

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 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: “6. Decision: 6.1 I have gone through the order passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant

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 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: “6. Decision: 6.1 I have gone through the order passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant

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)

100/- vide its Order u/s 250 dated 06.02.2025 by treating the fresh unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 2,01,92,401/- taken by the appellant during the financial year 2016-17 under consideration as un-explained by upholding invoking the provisions of section 68

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

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

section 68, it is evident that assessing officer can make\naddition u/s 68 only under two circumstances, i.e.:\nor\n(i)\n(ii)\nAppellant does not offer any explanation about nature and source of such credit\nExplanation offered by Appellant is not upto the satisfaction of Ld. AO.\nIn other words, whenever Appellant provides explanation, before rejecting the\nsame

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C. 3. 100 ITTD 5 (Jodh.) (T.M.) Uma Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Sp. Range Section

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

Bench: Him.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against

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

100/-. Now, here it is imperative to analyse section 68 of\nthe Act, which has been applied in the case

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

100/-. Now, here it is imperative to analyse section 68 of\nthe Act, which has been applied in the case

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

100/-. Now, here it is imperative to analyse section 68 of\nthe Act, which has been applied in the case

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)

100 (Chennai Trib.) [21-02-2024) held that where assessee-firm could not establish source for cash deposits in old currency notes, same was to be brought to tax under section 69A read with section 115BBE. The facts of the case at hand is similar to the facts of that case. The assessee in the present case could

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)

100 (Chennai Trib.) [21-02-2024) held that where assessee-firm could not establish source for cash deposits in old currency notes, same was to be brought to tax under section 69A read with section 115BBE. The facts of the case at hand is similar to the facts of that case. The assessee in the present case could

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)

100% cash deposit during demonetization, justified. 14. Further, it is well settled in law that once sales are accepted and taxed as business income, the cash deposited out of such sales cannot again be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68