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 /

130 Taxman 553 (Cal.). Ownership is one of the Considerations – The material difference between Section 68 and 69A is that

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

130-142 v) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Neel Giri Krishi Farms (P.) Ltd. [2013] 218 Taxman 95 (Allahabad)(MAG.) Case Law PB page 143-146. 5) No addition of amount received against sales can be made u/s 68 The cash deposited in the demonetized currency added as income of the assessee by applying the provisions of section

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C provides that in cases where the nature and source of investments or acquisition of money, bullion or expenditure incurred are not explained at all, or not satisfactorily explained, then, the value of such investments and money, or value of articles not recorded in the books of accounts or the unexplained expenditure may be deemed

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act. Finally, AO completed the\n5\nITA No. 317/JP/2024\nShri Harsh Agarwal vs. DCIT\nassessment vide order dated 29.12.2019 at a total income of Rs.\n53,86,130/-.\n4. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the assessment, assessee\npreferred an appeal before the Id. CIT(A) challenging the finding and\nobservation of the Id. AO. Apropos

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

130 taxmann.com 294 (DPB 43-48) wherein vide the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "Section 69, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Unexplained investments (Unsecured loans) Assessment year 2013-14 Assessee-company had received unsecured loans from two different companies - Commissioner noting that said loans were shown as investment in 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

130 taxmann.com 294 (DPB 43-48) wherein vide the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "Section 69, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Unexplained investments (Unsecured loans) Assessment year 2013-14 Assessee-company had received unsecured loans from two different companies - Commissioner noting that said loans were shown as investment in assessee

SITARAM BADRI NARAIN MAWAWALE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act, hence Section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable on the taxable income of the appellant. 22 Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that the assessment order also undoubtedly speaks that no show cause notice for invoking the provision of section 115 BBE has been issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR NOWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

130-142 v) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Neel Giri Krishi Farms (P.) Ltd. [2013] 218 Taxman 95 (Allahabad)(MAG.) Case Law PB page 143-146. (ix) The books of account not rejected:- The books of account were accepted by the ld AO and provisions of section 145(3) has not been applied. The ld. AO herself accepted such

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

68 of the Act,supra.\n10. Thereafter, based on outcome of such enquiries and verification,\nnecessary additions, wherever required, may be made to the total\nincome of the assessee as per law by modifying the assessment order\nu/s 147/144B of the Act dated 15.04.2021. However, the AO is directed\nto ensure that reasonable opportunities of being heard are provided

PANNA LAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this connection, order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. [1958] 34 ITR 130 (SC) may be studied. 6. The Appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forgo any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during

DCIT,CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PANNA LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this connection, order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. [1958] 34 ITR 130 (SC) may be studied. 6. The Appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forgo any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during

GAYATRI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68, mere fact that AO did not make any reference to said issue in assessment order, would not entitle Commissioner to pass a revisional order 9.1 Adverse Observations and Objections by the Ld. CIT: The other objections are nothing more than a suspicion, particularly when the CIT did not deny that these were old creditors (except

PRANATI BUILDCON, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT CEN CIR ,KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68, 69, 69A, and 70, additional income does not at all fall within the scope of any of them. Thus, again the authorities below have utterly failed to establish that Section 69C was applicable in this case. Consequently, Section 115BBE, a machinery provision, could not have been involved. 4.6 The observation at pg. 17 that no deduction

PARSHWANATH BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

68 and section 69 family. If the addition is made under these sections, the tax has to be charged as per provisions of section 115BBE. The charging of tax as per provisions of section 115BBE is automatic. Hence, no separate show cause notice is required for charging tax u/s 115BBE. Therefore, the argument of the appellant

PARSHAVNATH ASSOCIATES, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

68 and section 69 family. If the addition is made under these sections, the tax has to be charged as per provisions of section 115BBE. The charging of tax as per provisions of section 115BBE is automatic. Hence, no separate show cause notice is required for charging tax u/s 115BBE. Therefore, the argument of the appellant

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

130 DTR 78/283\nCTR 92 (Delhi)(HC) it was held that mere information that huge cash deposits were\nmade in the bank accounts could not give the AO prima facie belief that income has\nescaped assessment. The AO is required to form prima facie opinion based on tangible\nmaterial which provides the nexus or the link having reason to believe

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

130-142) v) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Neel Giri Krishi Farms (P.) Ltd. [2013] 218 Taxman 95 (Allahabad)(MAG.)(Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 143-146) 4.3.9 It is not compulsory or mandatory under the I. Tax Act, 1961 to collect the information related to full name, address or/and PAN of the customer to whom goods were

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

68.\nIn first appeal assessee filed the detailed WS, Paper Book and legal\nposition of law. However the Id. CIT(A) did not consider the same in\ntheir true perspective and sense and confirmed the addition by stating\nthat \"Thus it was imperative on the appellant to explain the source of\ncash deposit. The appellant has failed to prove that