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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

127 of the Act circulated vide Pr. CIT/Alw/127/2015-16/2602 dated 12-02-2016. Notice under section 153A of the Act was issued and served upon the Assessee on 04/07/2016 requiring him to file a true and correct return of income as prescribed under Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 within 15 days of the service of the said

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

127 of the Act circulated vide Pr. CIT/Alw/127/2015-16/2602 dated 12-02-2016. Notice under section 153A of the Act was issued and served upon the Assessee on 04/07/2016 requiring him to file a true and correct return of income as prescribed under Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 within 15 days of the service of the said

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

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

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, since amount of loan received by assessee was returned to loan party during year itself and all transactions were carried out through banking channels, impugned addition was to be deleted. c. PCIT Vs. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) Held: Where assessee had taken unsecured loan from two companies and had submitted all evidences

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 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

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

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 – High court\nin impugned order noted that summons to shareholders under section 131 could not be\nserved with remark that addresses were not available and that shareholders were first time\nAssessees and were not earning enough income to make deposits in question and held that\nsince assessee did not offer to procure presence of shareholders, assessee failed

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 – High court\nin impugned order noted that summons to shareholders under section 131 could not be\nserved with remark that addresses were not available and that shareholders were first time\nAssessees and were not earning enough income to make deposits in question and held that\nsince assessee did not offer to procure presence of shareholders, assessee failed

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 – High court\nin impugned order noted that summons to shareholders under section 131 could not be\nserved with remark that addresses were not available and that shareholders were first time\nAssessees and were not earning enough income to make deposits in question and held that\nsince assessee did not offer to procure presence of shareholders, assessee failed

RIDHIRAJ BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, NCRB, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently taxing the same under section 115BBE. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the surrendered income was earned from trading in real estate, as evidenced by the statement recorded during survey proceedings, and thus should be treated as business income. 4. That the appellant craves the right

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

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of unaccounted sales of Rs. 4,75,61,276/- as the assessee failed to explain the transaction as per provision of 68 of the Act "? 11. "That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of unaccounted sales of Rs. 4,75,61,276/- as the assessee failed to explain the transaction as per provision of 68 of the Act "? 11. "That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of unaccounted sales of Rs. 4,75,61,276/- as the assessee failed to explain the transaction as per provision of 68 of the Act "? 11. "That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of unaccounted sales of Rs. 4,75,61,276/- as the assessee failed to explain the transaction as per provision of 68 of the Act "? 11. "That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of unaccounted sales of Rs. 4,75,61,276/- as the assessee failed to explain the transaction as per provision of 68 of the Act "? 11. "That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing