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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

133(6) or u/s 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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

133(6) or u/s 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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

133(6) or u/s 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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

133(6) or u/s 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

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)

133(6) of the Act (PB 84). • Addition of Rs 42,00,40,000 has resulted in double addition as the Appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section 68

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)

133(6) of the Act (PB 84). • Addition of Rs 42,00,40,000 has resulted in double addition as the Appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section 68

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 of the I.T. Act 1. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 124-128 E. CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A, which was necessary for the disposal of the case, when there was justified and reasonable cause for not producing the same before

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

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

Bench: Him.

133(6) [ calling for any information from any person or any officer ] , section 131 [ Summons enforcing attendance of any person or any officer and examine him on oath ] and Section 10 Jitendra Kumar TahilramanI vs. ITO 131(1)(d) [ Issuing commission to any authority to conduct any investigation ] not considered as the assessee failed to discharged the initial

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, 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 of the Act on the parameters of the identity of the subscriber to the share capital, genuineness of the transaction and the capacity of the subscriberto the share capital. It found that the identity of the subscribers was confirmed by virtue of the Assessing Officer issuing a notices under Section 133

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Bank deposits)\n Assessment year 2013- 14 - During year, assessee had made cash deposits of\ncertain amount in his bank account Assessing Officer made additions on\naccount of same on ground that source of same was not explained by assessee\nIt was noted that assessee furnished number of sales invoices

RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act is attracted due to this reason also. Even the identities of the persons from whom the loans are claimed to have been received are not satisfactorily proved by the appellant as the notices under 133

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 and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue necessary forms. Computation in ITNS 150 is enclosed which is part of this order. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r/w section 274 of the IT Act is initiated for concealment of income. 4. Being aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the assessee has filed an appeal

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)

133(6) before issuing the notice under Section 148, demonstrating independent application of mind. 2. Nexus with Escapement of Income: The AO established a direct link between the appellant’s transactions and the findings from the investigation wing, corroborated by independent evidence. 3. Credibility of Evidence: Unlike the cases cited by the appellant, the AO relied on substantial evidence

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 by taking the view that cash found during the course of search/seizure is not backed by valid Books of accounts as it has been rejected, and also erred without bringing any cogent material in support of his contention and without bringing corroborative evidence and without considering the materials and explanations available on records in their true perspective and sense

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 as against 69A as was originally proposed. In support of the above submission, copies of acknowledgements of submission made before ld.AO, whereby cash books of all the three proprietary concerns were submitted is enclosed. It is therefore submitted that no additional evidences were furnished by assessee during appellate proceedings before ld.CIT(A). It is therefore submitted that grounds

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the\nIncome Tax Act, by DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur.\n2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -\n2\nITA No. 317/JP/2024\nShri Harsh Agarwal vs. DCIT\n“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Id.CIT(A) has erred in\nconfirming the addition