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)

68 and 69A of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The Appellate prays to leave, to add, to alter, amend, the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of appeal.” 3

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)

3. ITO Vs. Mega Collections Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 151 taxmann.com 403 (Surat- 97-109 Trib.) 4. Rajuram Savaji Purohit Vs. ITO [2024] 169 taxmann.com 18 (Mumbai - 110-116 Trib.)] C. Once the assessee provides evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders, the onus shifts to the Revenue to prove otherwise. 1. CIT v. Ranchod Jivabhai Nakava

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)

68 of the I.T. Act and taxed @ 30% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.” Further, it is submitted that the entire additions have been made by ld.AO on the basis of entries found noted in the seized documents found as a result of search from the M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT business premises

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)

68 of the I.T. Act and taxed @ 30% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.” Further, it is submitted that the entire additions have been made by ld.AO on the basis of entries found noted in the seized documents found as a result of search from the M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT business premises

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)

68 of the I.T. Act and taxed @ 30% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.” Further, it is submitted that the entire additions have been made by ld.AO on the basis of entries found noted in the seized documents found as a result of search from the M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT business premises

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)

68 of the I.T. Act and taxed @ 30% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.” Further, it is submitted that the entire additions have been made by ld.AO on the basis of entries found noted in the seized documents found as a result of search from the M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT business premises

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)

68 of the I.T. Act and taxed @ 30% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.” Further, it is submitted that the entire additions have been made by ld.AO on the basis of entries found noted in the seized documents found as a result of search from the M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT business premises

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)

68 of the I.T. Act and taxed @ 30% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.” Further, it is submitted that the entire additions have been made by ld.AO on the basis of entries found noted in the seized documents found as a result of search from the M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT business premises

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

section 153C, wherein leave was given to assessee to file its return of income within 30 days - Said notices were followed by another set of notices, issued under section 142(1), wherein assessee was required to file relevant documents/information within two days - In view of fact that period accorded to assessee was extremely short, assessee had asked

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

section 153C, wherein leave was given to assessee to file its return of income within 30 days - Said notices were followed by another set of notices, issued under section 142(1), wherein assessee was required to file relevant documents/information within two days - In view of fact that period accorded to assessee was extremely short, assessee had asked

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

3) for the A.Y. 2013-14 and addition u/s 68 of the Act was made in the total\nxome of the assessee on account of unexplained credits in books of accounts on the same issue of lako\nmpanies. Further it is also very important to mention here that the above named companies are dummy\ncompanies as accepted by the Jain

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

3) for the A.Y. 2013-14 and addition u/s 68 of the Act was made in the total\nxome of the assessee on account of unexplained credits in books of accounts on the same issue of lako\nmpanies. Further it is also very important to mention here that the above named companies are dummy\ncompanies as accepted by the Jain

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

3) for the A.Y. 2013-14 and addition u/s 68 of the Act was made in the total\nxome of the assessee on account of unexplained credits in books of accounts on the same issue of lako\nmpanies. Further it is also very important to mention here that the above named companies are dummy\ncompanies as accepted by the Jain

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 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)

3 are not found to be justified. This ground of appeal are treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 4 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. ‘’7.3 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment

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)

3 are not found to be justified. This ground of appeal are treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 4 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. ‘’7.3 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

68 of the I.T.Act and taxed @ 60% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T.Act.” Moreover, it is seen from the seized records that, alleged unaccounted purchases are also recorded therein and the ld. AO has himself admitted the same. It is further submitted that the seized records itself provides the link to alleged unaccounted sales and unaccounted

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

68 of the I.T.Act and taxed @ 60% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T.Act.” Moreover, it is seen from the seized records that, alleged unaccounted purchases are also recorded therein and the ld. AO has himself admitted the same. It is further submitted that the seized records itself provides the link to alleged unaccounted sales and unaccounted

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