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)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition made by the ld. AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A). 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case

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

68 of the Act. The action of Id.\nCIT(A) is illegal unjustified arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,28,000/-.\n3.\nThe assessee craves his right to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds\non or before the hearing.”\n3. Succinctly, the fact

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 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to him and the same were complied by the assesse. However, in the assessment order the learned AO without rejecting the books of accounts treated the SBNs of Rs. 4,35,91,454/- deposited at Jodhpur in HDFC Bank, as not explained u/s 68

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)

142 (1) of IT Act, 1961 dated 04.10.2019. The assessee had furnished the details of cash deposits in various bank accounts. On perusal of the said details, I find that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 1652000 during the demonetization period of 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 in his Bank of Baroda A/c No. 03870100003928. In this a/c cash deposit

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

142(1)(iii) of the LT. Act, 1961 which was pending up to the finalization of the order. In absence of this very essential document, the nature of transaction cannot be ascertained or whether accounted for or not. Even cash flow statement/cash book was also not been furnished by the assessee to verify the transaction. He simply stated that

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

142(1)(iii) of the LT. Act, 1961 which was pending up to the finalization of the order. In absence of this very essential document, the nature of transaction cannot be ascertained or whether accounted for or not. Even cash flow statement/cash book was also not been furnished by the assessee to verify the transaction. He simply stated that

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

142(1)(iii) of the LT. Act, 1961 which was pending up to the finalization of the order. In absence of this very essential document, the nature of transaction cannot be ascertained or whether accounted for or not. Even cash flow statement/cash book was also not been furnished by the assessee to verify the transaction. He simply stated that

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

142(1)(iii) of the LT. Act, 1961 which was pending up to the finalization of the order. In absence of this very essential document, the nature of transaction cannot be ascertained or whether accounted for or not. Even cash flow statement/cash book was also not been furnished by the assessee to verify the transaction. He simply stated that

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)

68,011/- u/s.68 of the Act as unexplained credits. 6.6 The return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed by assessee on29.09.2015 declaring income of Rs 1,29,27,430/-. There was an information available with the department revealed the appellant has received sub contract from M/s Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd during the financial year

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)

68,011/- u/s.68 of the Act as unexplained credits. 6.6 The return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed by assessee on29.09.2015 declaring income of Rs 1,29,27,430/-. There was an information available with the department revealed the appellant has received sub contract from M/s Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd during the financial year

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)

142(1) the assessee furnished his return of income on 31-10-2017 declaring total Income of Rs. 1,77,10,650/-. It includes the surrendered income of Rs. 89.05 lacs which had been accepted by the assessee during the course of search. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is being initiated for undisclosed

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)

142(1) the assessee furnished his return of income on 31-10-2017 declaring total Income of Rs. 1,77,10,650/-. It includes the surrendered income of Rs. 89.05 lacs which had been accepted by the assessee during the course of search. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is being initiated for undisclosed

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)

68 is invokable then also tax rate of 60% as invoked in the present case under section 115BBE as per Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 i.e. 60% will not apply in the present case. The Ld Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 was w.e.f

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

68 of the Act. Obviously, in accommodation\nentries the lending or borrowing may be squared up and therefore, it is also\ncaught in the net of verification of its veracity. The assessee's arguments and\nreliance on various judicial precedents will also be dealt in this order later in\nrelevant paras.\n16. Considering the above discussion on facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

68 of the Act. Obviously, in accommodation\nentries the lending or borrowing may be squared up and therefore, it is also\ncaught in the net of verification of its veracity. The assessee's arguments and\nreliance on various judicial precedents will also be dealt in this order later in\nrelevant paras.\n16. Considering the above discussion on facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

68 of the Act. Obviously, in accommodation\nentries the lending or borrowing may be squared up and therefore, it is also\ncaught in the net of verification of its veracity. The assessee's arguments and\nreliance on various judicial precedents will also be dealt in this order later in\nrelevant paras.\n\n16. Considering the above discussion on facts

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

142(1) alongwith questionnaire that the assessee has filed the return. The surrender of the unexplained income is thus not voluntary, as regards the submission that section 68