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 does not require that the amount is to be owned by the Assessee. It only deals with any amount shown in the books of accounts of the assessee whereas Section 69A deals with money, etc., owned by the assessee and found in his possession. – d) Riveria Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITA No. 250/Mum/2013

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 does not require that the amount is to be owned by the Assessee. It only deals with any amount shown in the books of accounts of the assessee whereas Section 69A deals with money, etc., owned by the assessee and found in his possession. – d) Riveria Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITA No. 250/Mum/2013

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)

section 68 of Act as the explanation furnished by you in respect of 347 bills during the short period available in the evening of 08.11.2016 does not sound plausible. The assessee submitted its reply which reads as under : 1. That as per the information submitted earlier in the course of assessment proceedings assessee has got a retail outlet

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

131 of I.T. Act, 1961 to be conducted. It is quite strange that assessee is unaware of whereabouts of those persons and of the brokers, from whom he had taken such a huge amount of advances. (iii) On being asked about the present status of land, the A/R simply said that these lands are under dispute and subject to adjudication

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

131 of I.T. Act, 1961 to be conducted. It is quite strange that assessee is unaware of whereabouts of those persons and of the brokers, from whom he had taken such a huge amount of advances. (iii) On being asked about the present status of land, the A/R simply said that these lands are under dispute and subject to adjudication

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

131 of I.T. Act, 1961 to be conducted. It is quite strange that assessee is unaware of whereabouts of those persons and of the brokers, from whom he had taken such a huge amount of advances. (iii) On being asked about the present status of land, the A/R simply said that these lands are under dispute and subject to adjudication

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

131 of I.T. Act, 1961 to be conducted. It is quite strange that assessee is unaware of whereabouts of those persons and of the brokers, from whom he had taken such a huge amount of advances. (iii) On being asked about the present status of land, the A/R simply said that these lands are under dispute and subject to adjudication

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 on account of said unsecured loan by AO without considering such documents/details produced by assessee was unjustified. c. K.P. Manish Global Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Company Circle-II(4), Chennai [2021 131

SHRI HARI NARAIN GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 wherein he accepted that the cash found in possession of Sh. Atul Kumar Gupta was his current year’s income i.e. F.Y. 2016-17 (A.Y. 2017-18) and thereafter, a search warrant u/s 132 was issued in the name of assessee and the bag in his possession was searched at 421, 4th Floor, Saraogi

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against

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

section 68 on account of share\napplication money – Held, yes.\n3. 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) CIT Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd.\nIf the shares holders are identified and it established that they have invested\nmoney in the purchases of shares, then the amount received by the company\nwould be regarded as a application receipt

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

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

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

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 on account of share application money – Held, yes. 5. 205 ITR 98 (Delhi ) CIT Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. If the shares holders are identified and it established that they have invested money in the purchases of shares, then the amount received by the company would be regarded as a capital receipt

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)

section 68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per se 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld. This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 5 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. ‘’8.5 I have considered

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)

section 68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per se 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld. This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 5 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. ‘’8.5 I have considered

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI vs. M/S ARAVALI PRIME CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BUNDI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with no order as to cost

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties

68 be invoked. The revenue authorities cannot question the charging of such of huge premium without any bar from any legislated law of the land. The Assessing Officer did not make any effort to conduct any enquiry directly from these Investors. The Assessing Officer did not issue notices under section 133(6) or summon under section 131