SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68,69,69A,69B,69C or 69D. 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities as regards the addition sustained. As regards the charge of tax u/s. 115BBE he has vehemently argued that provision section 4 being the charging section does not support the contentions of the assessee so raised

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68,69,69A,69B,69C or 69D. 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities as regards the addition sustained. As regards the charge of tax u/s. 115BBE he has vehemently argued that provision section 4 being the charging section does not support the contentions of the assessee so raised

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

section 68 and added it\nto income of assessee On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition\nOn revenue's appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs.\n19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of 'D' Ltd. which were converted\ninto drafts and in this manner 'D' Ltd. subscribed to share application of assessee\ncompany

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

68 of the Act. Obviously, in accommodation\nentries the lending or borrowing may be squared up and therefore, it is also\ncaught in the net of verification of its veracity. The assessee's arguments and\nreliance on various judicial precedents will also be dealt in this order later in\nrelevant paras.\n16. Considering the above discussion on facts

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

68 of the Act. Obviously, in accommodation\nentries the lending or borrowing may be squared up and therefore, it is also\ncaught in the net of verification of its veracity. The assessee's arguments and\nreliance on various judicial precedents will also be dealt in this order later in\nrelevant paras.\n16. Considering the above discussion on facts

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

68 of the Act. Obviously, in accommodation\nentries the lending or borrowing may be squared up and therefore, it is also\ncaught in the net of verification of its veracity. The assessee's arguments and\nreliance on various judicial precedents will also be dealt in this order later in\nrelevant paras.\n\n16. Considering the above discussion on facts

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

119; or (d)the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.". 7.2 In reaching such conclusion, I rely on the following judicial rulings: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cash deposited in assessee's bank account during the year under consideration applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the assessee couldn't furnish copy of cash book and other relevant documentary evidences during assessment proceedings. 4. On the facts and circumstances

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

68, 69 & 69A of the Act. As such, the assessee was able to justify the source of income surrendered during survey operation. Therefore we are of the view that the same cannot be treated as deemed income. Once, the income goes out of the preview of the deeming provision, the provision of section 115BBE of the Act cannot

GOLECHAS JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n10/04/2024

68 of\nthe Income Tax Act as AO didn't rejected the books of accounts nor\nbrought anything contrary on records to show that cash sales is not the\nsource for cash deposits. Keeping the above judgement in view, the same\nshould be held for the case under dispute.\nIt is also noted that the ld. AR of the assessee

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

119 (Jalpur - Trib.) it was held that orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2011-12- Where AO had made sufficient enquiries, considered survey records and surrender made by assessee and after considering submissions of assessee completed assessment proceedings under section 143(3), assessment order could not be held to be an erroneous order which was prejudicial

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

119 (Jalpur - Trib.) it was held that orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2011-12- Where AO had made sufficient enquiries, considered survey records and surrender made by assessee and after considering submissions of assessee completed assessment proceedings under section 143(3), assessment order could not be held to be an erroneous order which was prejudicial

SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

119, held that:\n\"The initial onus is upon the assessce to establish three things necessary\nto obviate the mischief of Section 68

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 68 treating the 14 squared up loans as unexplained. It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer conducted inquiries at his own level by issuing notices u/s 133(6) to the all the 24 creditors. The Learned Assessing Officer got complete information in respect of ten creditors and in the remaining 14 cases, the information furnished was allegedly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party

M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

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

Bench: Him.

section 68. All the aforesaid papers and documents stood submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer under letter dated 07/12/2020 and 15/2/2021. Copies of these letters are available on the additional Paper Book Page No. 16-18being submitted with this submission. It is further submitted that in the assessment order, the Learned Assessing Officer has mentioned regarding the reply

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

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

section 68, 69 and 69D etc. of the Act. It is a settled law that no\npremium can be awarded to the dishonesty. If the claim of the appellant\nis allowed that will tantamount to giving reward and premium to the\nmoney laundering practices.\nNulluscommodumcaperepotest de injuriasuapropria meaning no man\ncan take advantage of his own wrong

SHRI MERH KSHTRIYA SABHA,AJMER vs. CIT(APPEALS), DELHI

119/-have been\nclaimed as Capital expenditure against this amount. In response to the\nabove letter, the assessee trust has not filed any submissions, thereafter a\nshow cause notice was issued on 09.11.2018. In response to the above\nshow cause letter, the assessee trust has not filed any submissions, to give\nan another opportunity, final show cause notice was given