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

section 68 has not\nbeen proved. The assessee has stated in the assessment order, the\nassessee failed to connect the reason as to how they came into contact\nwith Investor Company. The assessee could not place on record, Share\napplication made by the investors company what process was adopted for\ninviting application for the allotment of shares. The assessee

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)

section 68 and added it to income of assessee – On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition – On revenue’s appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs. 19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of ‘D’ Ltd. which were converted into drafts and in this manner ‘D’ Ltd. subscribed to share capital of assessee company

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)

68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per section 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 6 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. 9.3 I have considered

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)

68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per section 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 6 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. 9.3 I have considered

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 and taxed the same in terms of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1ST Appeal The assessment order so passed by assessment unit was appealed before the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC who also sustained the addition made by ld. AO. Submissions :- The appellant wishes to withdraw ground nos. 1, 5,6,7 and 8 as taken

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act while the provisions of 68 as such are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts because the sale transaction are already part of the income which is already credited in Profit & Loss Account, therefore there is no occasion to again consider the same as income of the appellant

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 68 says that “68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 145(3) then only Fair Income may be estimated which should be based on past results if available, in this matter assesse has a long past history which are undisputable therefore in view of past history estimated profit should be calculated by applying a suitable Net Profit Ratio. Many landmark judgements are supporting this contention as follows

RAYS POWER EXPERTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68 and ground of appeal is rejected. Ground of Appeal Four and Five It has been argued that addition made on account of PPC Expenses of Rs.1,78,21,544 in not correct in law. Ld.JAO has given following finding in the assessment order- 4.3 The assessee has furnished confirmations of some parties only. The parties in respect of which

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113): "... From a rending of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113): "... From a rending of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

108 taxmann.com 183 (SC)\nIn this regard reference is made to section 292BB of the Act:-\nNotice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances.\n292BB. Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or co-\noperated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment, it\nshall be deemed that any notice under any provision of this Act, which

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to interfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority." The onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the interest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively only for the purpose of making investments which

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

section 68 of the Act is not applicable at all as no finding has been recorded by Ld. AO that there is any sum found credited in books of accounts. The case of the Assessee is not of any unexplained cash credit as no such case has been made out by the Ld. AO. v. SEBI vs Rakhi Trading

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act.\nExplanation offered to substantiate the cash sales has been arbitrarily rejected without\nholding that the sales is duly recorded in the books and is also supported by the\nvarious records produced in the assessment proceedings. \"\nACIT Central Circle-1 vs. Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal ITA No.\n172/JP/2022\nWe agree with the findings

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 to 69D read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the AO has not brought to tax the surrendered income as per applicable provisions of the Act. 14.The AO has not verified the amount of Rs.45,85,897/- under the head “Staff Payable”. 15.The AO has not at all verified all the issues enumerated from

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively\nonly for the purpose of making investments which

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively\nonly for the purpose of making investments which

MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,CHURU vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D reflected in the return furnished u/s 139 of the income tax act NOR AO determined includes any income referred in the above mentioned sections so our humble submission is that AO imposed normal tax slab because there is no ingredients of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. In our computation