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 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub section (1) of section 11588E has been

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 /

9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Ground no. 1 & 2 being general does not require any finding. Vide Ground no. 3 the assessee challenges the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,85,000/- being the amount deposited in cash in the bank account under section

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)

9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Ground no. 1 & 2 being general does not require any finding. Vide Ground no. 3 the assessee challenges the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,85,000/- being the amount deposited in cash in the bank account under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. 6. We also note that the provisions of section 68 cannot be appliedin relation to\nthe sales receipt shown by the assessee in its books ofaccounts. It is because the\nsales receipt has already been shown in thebooks of accounts as income at the\ntime of sale only.\n9. 7. We are also aware of the fact that

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 as per details given above. It is reiterated that provisions of section 68 are not applicable on the sale transaction recorded in the books of account as sales are already part of the income which is already credited in the Profit and loss account. 4.7. Sections 68 creates deeming fictions, whereby certain amounts which are not considered

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)

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 698B, section 69C or section 690, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income- tax payable shall be the aggregate of (i) The amount of income-tax calculated

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

139(1)\non 30.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs 3,50,470. Assessment u/s 143(3) was\ncompleted vide order, dated 23.12.2019, by making additions of Rs 1,73,56,000\nu/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of cash deposits in bank account.\nIII. Against the order passed by Id. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the\nNational

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

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

WHOLERY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

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

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

68 to 70). In this application the assessee did not seek any rectification in the return filed by it but he sought rectification in the order passed u/s 139(9) of the Act and the rectification of apparent mistake in any order is well within the scope of section

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(1) or\r\n139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted\r\nupon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further\r\nproceedings in relation

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), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

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)

139 on 29.09.2015 declaring business income of Rs. 1,29,27,430/-. Based on the search action on M/s. Dinesh R Agrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd (DRAIPL) the revenue was in possession of the information that the assessee benefited of the unaccounted money by way of booking bogus subcontracts expenses. Record reveals that the assessee received sub contract

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)

139 on 29.09.2015 declaring business income of Rs. 1,29,27,430/-. Based on the search action on M/s. Dinesh R Agrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd (DRAIPL) the revenue was in possession of the information that the assessee benefited of the unaccounted money by way of booking bogus subcontracts expenses. Record reveals that the assessee received sub contract

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

139 of the Act, the income tax payable shall be at the rate of 60% on income so referred in said sections. Thus, both the pre-amended and post-amended provisions of section 115BBE talks about the income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section

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 Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., 198 ITR 297 (SC) has held that the proceedings under section 147 are for the benefit 5 Shri Rajesh Chachwani, Jaiupr. of the revenue and not for the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that

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