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

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being capital contribution by one of the partners; namely, Goodfarms Calfcare LLP, which was deleted by the CIT(A). …… 9.2. The AO, however, proceeded to make the addition solely on the basis that the said partner, Goodfarms Calfcare LLP, failed to respond to the notice issued under section 133(6

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(6

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68.\nIdentification of buyers\nSo far as identification of buyers are concerned, assessee has furnished full detail\nof names and addresses along with their PIN code numbers. (Copy is placed here\nalso) Since, assessee discharged his onus lay upon him by filing of the detail, AO\nobservation that the details are incomplete and invoices are bogus

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) of IT Act, 1961 Please te below the parawise reply of\nthe said notice.\n1. No advance wes given by me to Shiri Nitin Vijay against gold during the penod from\n17.10.2016 to 08.11.2016\n2. No advance was given, thius the question of mode of payment do not anse 3. Yes I am\ntaxpayer but not assessed

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

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

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

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

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

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(6

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 68 treating the 14 squared up loans as unexplained. It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer conducted inquiries at his own level by issuing notices u/s 133(6

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)

6. RAS Concepts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer ITA No. 60-64 2352/AHD/2018 [2022] 95 ITR 46 (Ahmedabad- Tribunal) B Where the assessee received unsecured loans and produced confirmation of lenders to establish creditworthiness, genuineness, and identities of lenders in transactions, the impugned addition under section 68 cannot be made 1 ITO Vs. Amar Pratap Steels

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

133(6) of the Act. 6.2. Provision of Section 68 are not applicable on the Respondent. 6.3. No incriminating

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)

6. Copy of documentary evidences to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd. a. Copy of Share application form 133-134 b. Copy of Board Resolution 135-136 c. Copy of PAN Card 137 d. Copy of Bank Statement 138 e. Copy of ITR for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 139-140 f. Copy of company

SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

133(6) has confirmed the amount invested by way of share capital, assessee has discharged the initial onus cast on it in terms of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and hence, no addition could be made u/s 68. DCIT & Ors. Vs. Acro Exports Trade Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 56 CCH 446 (Mum.) (Trib.) The relevant finding at Para

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

133(6) were issued to the following entities:\n\n1.\nM/s Agarani Credit and Finvest Pvt. Ltd.\n2. M/s Darshan Enclave Pvt. Ltd.\n3. M/s Harsharatna Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd.\n4. M/s Shareen Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd.\n\nHowever, no replies were received from these entities.\n\n2.3 Field Enquiries by Income Tax Inspector\nField enquiries revealed that none