SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, section 65. section 69A, section 698, section 690 or section 690 to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139

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 of the Act and thereby assessed as such. A propose this ground the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under : Regarding the addition of Rs.6.45,810, which represents additional income offered by the appellant through revised computation and return, this amount stems from interest income of Rs.11.21.649 as per Form 26AS. According to the appellant

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 of the Act and thereby assessed as such. A propose this ground the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under : Regarding the addition of Rs.6.45,810, which represents additional income offered by the appellant through revised computation and return, this amount stems from interest income of Rs.11.21.649 as per Form 26AS. According to the appellant

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 because the cash deposits become self-explanatory and\nsuch amounts were received by the assessee from the customers against which\nthe delivery of the vehicle was made to the customers. The question of sustaining\nthe addition of Rs.6,98,000 would not arise.\"\n8.38 The above cited cases pertain to period prior to demonetization; therefore

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the Return of Income furnished under section 139

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)

139 of the IT Act declaring total income of Rs. 1,09,76,250 and income tax has been deposited on such income. Hence, Section 68

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

68 of the Act, and invoking the\nprovision of section 115BBE. The action of the Id. AO is illegal, unjustified\narbitrary and again st the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by\ndeleting the addition of Rs. 1,73,56,000 and liable for tax at normal rates.\n4.2 Decision\n4.2.1 In view of the detailed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

139 on 30/03/2017 vide acknowledgement no. 12567361029316 declaring total income of Rs. 13,06,680/- and agricultural income of Rs. 12,46,718/-. In response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee has e-filed its return of income on 08/02/2017 vide acknowledgement no. 615333541080217/- declaring income of Rs. 13,06,680/-. During the course of search cash

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

139 on 30/03/2017 vide acknowledgement no. 12567361029316 declaring total income of Rs. 13,06,680/- and agricultural income of Rs. 12,46,718/-. In response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee has e-filed its return of income on 08/02/2017 vide acknowledgement no. 615333541080217/- declaring income of Rs. 13,06,680/-. During the course of search cash

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

139 on 30/03/2017 vide acknowledgement no. 12567361029316 declaring total income of Rs. 13,06,680/- and agricultural income of Rs. 12,46,718/-. In response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee has e-filed its return of income on 08/02/2017 vide acknowledgement no. 615333541080217/- declaring income of Rs. 13,06,680/-. During the course of search cash

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

139 on 30/03/2017 vide acknowledgement no. 12567361029316 declaring total income of Rs. 13,06,680/- and agricultural income of Rs. 12,46,718/-. In response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee has e-filed its return of income on 08/02/2017 vide acknowledgement no. 615333541080217/- declaring income of Rs. 13,06,680/-. During the course of search cash

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held\r\nthat a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 , section 69, section 69A , section 69B , section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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)

section 68 of the Act without appreciating that the said amount has already been credited to the profit and loss account on which tax has been paid by the Assessee therefore adding the same amount again has resulted in double addition which is grossly incorrect and therefore the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition made

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)

section 68 of the Act without appreciating that the said amount has already been credited to the profit and loss account on which tax has been paid by the Assessee therefore adding the same amount again has resulted in double addition which is grossly incorrect and therefore the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition made

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

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

139(1) of the IT Act. The AO initiated the proceedings under section 147/148 of the IT Act on the basis of AIR information regarding cash deposit of Rs. 17,06,800/- in his Savings Bank Account during the year under consideration. Accordingly the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 25th March

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and\nsection 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,-\n(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing,\nseized or requisitioned, belongs to; or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala),\nthe Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond\nperiod stipulated under section 139