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

section 115BBE. In this regard ITAT RAJKOT BENCH IN THE VijubhaJitubha Jadeja v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 154 taxmann.com 615 (Rajkot - Trib.) held as under - "Further the AO having made addition 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)

section 154 of the Act.” Shri SagarUttamMurhe in ITA No. 1615/PUN/2018 “Case was selected for Limited scrutiny on the sole issue of “interest income mismatch”, whereas assessment u.s 143(3) was completed after making addition u/s 68

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, section 69D and so rightly not invoked provisions of section 115BBE while determining tax payable by assessee on assessment but determined tax payable by assessee at normal tax rates as is evident from assessment order. The AO in the notice u/s 154

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)

154 of the Act….” [Emphasis Supplied] Thus, having not invoked Section 69 or not recorded any satisfaction in this regard, lower authorities was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE. B. Where any non-income is converted by AO to income, as per Section 68

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)

154 of the Act….” [Emphasis Supplied] Thus, having not invoked Section 69 or not recorded any satisfaction in this regard, lower authorities was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE. B. Where any non-income is converted by AO to income, as per Section 68

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)

154 taxmann.com 432 (Gujarat)[03-05-2023] Held: Where assessee received unsecured loans and produced confirmation of lenders and other relevant documents such as copy of PAN, ledger account, bank statement and audited books so as to establish creditworthiness, genuineness and identities of lenders in transactions, impugned addition made under section 68

MUKESH GOYAL,GANGAPURCITY vs. ITO, SAWAI MADHOPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

154 by invoking section 115BBE where the section 68 & 69 had not applied in original assessment u/s 147/143

MUKESH KUMAR SARAOGI,CHURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

154, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Tax on income referred to in section 68 to section 69D (Scope

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 on account of cash deposits could not be made simply on the reason that during the demonetization period, cash deposits vis-à-vis cash sales ratio was higher. If customers during the period of demonetization purchased jewellery in cash which has been duly recorded in the books of account of the Appellant and also tallying with

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

154 CTR 365 (Bombay) Case Law paper Book page 232-237 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68,920/-) (APB 587- 725 Compilation of Papers Volume I Part II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68,920/-) (APB 587- 725 Compilation of Papers Volume I Part II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68,920/-) (APB 587- 725 Compilation of Papers Volume I Part II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68,920/-) (APB 587- 725 Compilation of Papers Volume I Part II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68,920/-) (APB 587- 725 Compilation of Papers Volume I Part II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68,920/-) (APB 587- 725 Compilation of Papers Volume I Part II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained

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 & 69A of the Act, but at the same time, did not levy higher tax as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. Since a conjoint reading reveals that there was due application of mind by the AO during the assessment proceedings, the assessment cannot be held as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest

LAXMI NARAYAN SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

68, 69 & 69A of the Act, but at the same time, did not levy higher tax as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. Since a conjoint reading reveals that there was due application of mind by the AO during the assessment proceedings, the assessment cannot be held as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest