SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

68 of the act. On the matrix as held by the Honorable Delhi high court the above issue falls within the scope of the provision of section 147 of the act and not u/s 251 (1) (a) of the act. Further the Honourable Delhi high court in para no 27 has also held that power of the first appellate

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 on account of alleged bogus cash sales were deleted:- 4.14.i ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Smt. Charu Agarwal & M/s. Kalanidhi Jewellers Vs. DCIT ITA No. 310 & 311/Chd/2021 order dated 25/03/2022 The findings of Hon'ble ITAT is in para 10 of the order. Hon'ble ITAT after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi

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

section 68 of the Income\nTax Act and therefore in the assessment completed addition of Rs. 1,73,56,000/-\nis made.\n3.4.12 Accordingly, the A.O. referred to provision u/s 68 of the I. T. Act and also\nrelied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Durga\nPrasad More

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 when the assessee fails to explain the source satisfactorily. Since the addition is upheld, the penalty proceeding is valid and tenable in law. Thus, on the basis of above discussion grounds of appeal 1 to 9 are hereby dismissed. 14

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 read with section 115BBE, if the names and addresses of the buyers are not mentioned in the cash memo. d. A professional will have also to prove the nature and source of his receipts in a definite manner by maintaining the record on the basis of some norms. Thus considering the facts of the case I find that

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details of such additional Income offered is as under: Sr. No. A. Y. Particulars of Additional Income Amount 1 2010-11 Agricultural Income 13,70,630 2 2011-12 Agricultural Income 13,85,650 3 2012-13 Agricultural Income 11,91,969 4 2014-15 Agricultural Income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details of such additional Income offered is as under: Sr. No. A. Y. Particulars of Additional Income Amount 1 2010-11 Agricultural Income 13,70,630 2 2011-12 Agricultural Income 13,85,650 3 2012-13 Agricultural Income 11,91,969 4 2014-15 Agricultural Income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details of such additional Income offered is as under: Sr. No. A. Y. Particulars of Additional Income Amount 1 2010-11 Agricultural Income 13,70,630 2 2011-12 Agricultural Income 13,85,650 3 2012-13 Agricultural Income 11,91,969 4 2014-15 Agricultural Income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details of such additional Income offered is as under: Sr. No. A. Y. Particulars of Additional Income Amount 1 2010-11 Agricultural Income 13,70,630 2 2011-12 Agricultural Income 13,85,650 3 2012-13 Agricultural Income 11,91,969 4 2014-15 Agricultural Income

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

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

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

section 2(14)(iii)(a) or 2(14)(iii)(b) as these stood then and thus the provisions of capital gains are not attracted in the case in view of notification dated 06.01.1994. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown

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)

14. It is further submitted that in present facts section 68 of the Act is not applicable. Section

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)

14. It is further submitted that in present facts section 68 of the Act is not applicable. Section

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68 to 69D has applied Section 115 BBE, which is incorrect as per the relevant scheme. 2.3. Ld. CIT(A) at Page 13 of her order has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd, ITA No. 157/JP/2017, for the proposition that the amendment brought about in Section

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68 to 69D has applied Section 115 BBE, which is incorrect as per the relevant scheme. 2.3. Ld. CIT(A) at Page 13 of her order has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd, ITA No. 157/JP/2017, for the proposition that the amendment brought about in Section

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 secondly, in the computation of tax liability, the tax liability on the undisclosed income has been determined as per slab rate of taxation applicable to an individual and not at the rate of 30% as specified in section 115BBE. Thus, both

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 with respect to the fresh unsecured loan taken by the appellant with respect to 53 parties out of 70 parties in respect of which the appellant had failed to produce the balance confirmation during the course of assessment proceedings despite repeated requests and follow-ups by the Appellant from the parties from whom the loan was taken