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)

6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act. Submission:- 9. The Appellant is a civil contractor and carries on the business with his proprietary concern M/s Radhakishan, having registration with PWD, Rajasthan in AA class category. Project road work “Widening and Strengthen to two lane with paved shoulder of Nimbi Jodha-Degana-Merta city section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act; hence, the order of the Assessing Officer is\nrequired to be restored and the order of the Id.CIT(A) is required to be set aside.\nWe do it accordingly. In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs.40,11,50,000/- as\nunexplained credit in the hands of the assessee (Vaishnavi Bullion Private\nLimited

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

section 12AA as a charitable entity undertaking educational activity and thus qualify as an eligible entity for receiving contributions from the assessee society. The contribution of Rs 3,86,84,912 is made by the assessee society out of income generated during the year under consideration as apparent from the return of income and computation of income available

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, section 65. section 69A, section 698, section 690 or section 690 to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub section (1) of section 11588E has been

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares

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

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 to tax as undisclosed

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 /

68 on income of Rs. 6,45,810/- surrendered by the assessee in revised computation which is again illegal and deserves to be deleted. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee came to know that his earlier counsel has inadvertently claimed deduction of 50% under section 44ADA against income of Rs 11

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)

68 on income of Rs. 6,45,810/- surrendered by the assessee in revised computation which is again illegal and deserves to be deleted. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee came to know that his earlier counsel has inadvertently claimed deduction of 50% under section 44ADA against income of Rs 11

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)

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. 4.25. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

Section 11(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Act as claimed by the assessee appellant trust. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making addition of Rs 66,94,824/- on account of unverifiable creditors. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

11. The Assessing Officer, on finding that the\nassessee was unable to satisfactorily explain the donations and the donors\nwere fictitious persons, held that the assessee had tried to introduce\nunaccounted money in its books by way of donations and, therefore, the\namount was to be treated as cash credit u/s. 68. The Delhi High Court held\nthat section

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)

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess) without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. 2. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

6. The AO before invoking the power u/s 68 must be satisfied that there are books of account maintained by the assessee and the cash credit is recorded in the said books of account. The differences in wordings of section 68 on the one hand and sections 69 and 69A is noteworthy. In the latter sections

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

6. The AO before invoking the power u/s 68 must be satisfied that there are books of account maintained by the assessee and the cash credit is recorded in the said books of account. The differences in wordings of section 68 on the one hand and sections 69 and 69A is noteworthy. In the latter sections

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

6. The AO before invoking the power u/s 68 must be satisfied that there are books of account maintained by the assessee and the cash credit is recorded in the said books of account. The differences in wordings of section 68 on the one hand and sections 69 and 69A is noteworthy. In the latter sections

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

6. The AO before invoking the power u/s 68 must be satisfied that there are books of account maintained by the assessee and the cash credit is recorded in the said books of account. The differences in wordings of section 68 on the one hand and sections 69 and 69A is noteworthy. In the latter sections

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.” 6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

section 11(1)(d) the Courts have sought to clarify that a specific direction can be gathered from how the recipient has accounted for the contribution. 19. in the case of an educational institution which collected fees on account of building fund and treated as corpus, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Bharatiya Samaknb Vidyapith Trust

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)

11,74,830/-. He had accepted sales declared in the Trading Account. However, the ld. AO made the addition of Rs. 6,76,59,000/- by applying the provisions of section 68