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 cannot be applied to the income which is already recorded in the books of account and the source of receipt is explained out of the stock already available with the assessee. To support these contentions the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following case laws : 30 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur

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

section 68 of the Act as the same cannot be\nmade without rejecting the books of account of the assessee\nregularly maintained by the assessee and the said cash deposited is\nduly supported by the entries passed in the books of account and\npart of the sale accepted by the AO.\n2.23.ii. ACIT Central Circle-1 vs. Shri Mahendra

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)

144 of the Act and therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) is in violation of section 251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 42,00,40,000 under section 68

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)

144 of the Act and therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) is in violation of section 251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 42,00,40,000 under section 68

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

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

144 read with section 153A of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard which is against the principal of natural justice and is illegal and bad in law. 3. That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer grossly erred in making additions in the absence

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

144 read with section 153A of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard which is against the principal of natural justice and is illegal and bad in law. 3. That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer grossly erred in making additions in the absence

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

144. Thus, it is clear from the above provision of the Act that the ld. AO or ld. CIT(A) may proceed under Section 145(3) under any of the following circumstances : • Where he is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts; or • Where method of accounting cash or mercantile has not been regularly followed

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)

144 of the Act after making addition to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- viz. entire amount of share application money by treating the same as Unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Aggrieved of the addition so made by ld.AO, assessee has preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), wherein ld. CIT(A) arbitrarily dismissed the appeal of assessee without considering

VINOD GUPTA,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHUNJHUNU

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

144 of the Act. 9. As is available from the assessment order dated 25.05.2023 as per specific information available on Insight portal under High Risk CRIU/VRU information, uploaded by the office of DDIT (Inv.), Unit-6(2), New Delhi, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 30.11.2018 at premises - Room No. 210 & 212, 4107, Naya Bazar

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144 r.w.s 144B of the Income 2 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] which was passed by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department [ for short AO]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. That the whole proceedings u/s 147/148 are liable to be held as null and void

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 8,10,00,000/- and partners capital introduced of Rs. 10,00,000/- after treating the same as unexplained cash credits 7.1 At the time of passing of assessment order u/s 144

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 8,10,00,000/- and partners capital introduced of Rs. 10,00,000/- after treating the same as unexplained cash credits 7.1 At the time of passing of assessment order u/s 144

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

section 68 submitted that considering the facts of the case of the assessee the same cannot be invoked. The assessee submitted all the details. The books of account of the assessee are audited and maintained in accordance with the rules prescribed. No defects whatsoever has been observed by the lower authority. Referring to clause 25 of the Form

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section wherein the phrase any sum is found credited has been used and the legislation has not used the word deposited. In other word the balancing effect of the transaction has to be credit account in the books of accounts which is not the case with the assessee. (h) In the case of Rameshwar Meena in CO No. 35/Jp/2017

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 alleging that cash found during the course of search/seizure is not backed by valid Books of accounts as it has been rejected, but without bringing any cogent material in support of his contention and without bringing corroborative evidence and without considering the materials and explanations available on records in their true perspective and sense, therefore invocation of Section

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,SIKANDARA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

68, 69 or 69A. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Learned PCIT Central has erred in passing order u/s 263. The same requires to be quashed. (V) Order passed by the learned AO is not erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Mukesh Kumar Saini vs. PCIT It is further submitted that the order passed