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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68 is not different.\n8.16 Even the particulars from assessment records, where the creditor is\nassessed, may not be sufficient as observed in CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd.\n(1998) 238 ITR 820 (Cal). Further, in the case of Kamal Motors v. CIT [2003] 131\nTaxman 155

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

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)

155-156 g. Copy of Confirmations & Affidavit 158-160 At this juncture, provisions of section 68 are reproduced for the sake

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, fails the very first criteria of there being a credit entry in the books of accounts laid down under the Act. It was also submitted before ld.CIT(A) that ld.AO on one hand, accepted the commission income of Rs. 95,11,422/- declared by assessee (on Farmer’s Sale) as such which was received on the gross consignment sales

SHRI NARESH JHANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is partly

68 of the Act is illegal and bad in law. 2. It is submitted that u/s 4 of the Act, income tax is to be charged in respect of total income of the previous year of every person. As per section 5 of the Act income of a person resident in India includes all income from whatever source derived

SHRI NARESH JHANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is partly

68 of the Act is illegal and bad in law. 2. It is submitted that u/s 4 of the Act, income tax is to be charged in respect of total income of the previous year of every person. As per section 5 of the Act income of a person resident in India includes all income from whatever source derived

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

155 Taxman 483 (Kerala)/[2007] 294 ITR 374 (Kerala)/[2006] 204\nCTR 81 (Kerala) [16-12-2005] that\nSection 234A, read with section 234B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nInterest -Chargeable as Whether interest under section 234A and\nsection 234B is charged on assessed income and not on income\nreturned by assessee Held, yes Whether amendment made

SHREENATH HERITAGE LIQUOR PVT. LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 68. In view of this it is submitted that the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer has erroneously confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 4. Favbourable case laws: - The assessee further places reliance on the following decisions of the wherein in similar circumstances share application money has been accepted as genuine and additions

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

155 taxmann.com 602 ( Madras ) 246(reasons to believe) 2. Approval not Before issuing notice u/s 148(a)(b), approval is required to 241 sought from be sought from specified authority in terms of section 151 of Pr. CCIT the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021. In terms of section 151(ii) of the Act , in case assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

68 of the Act is justifiable in the hands of the Assessee in view of the judgments in case of Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax (2006) 155 TAXMAN 289 (RAJ.), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR -II V. MORANI AUTOMOTIVES (P.) LTD. [2014] 264 CTR 86 (RAJASTHAN-HC), CIT v. Orissa Corpn

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

68 of the Act is justifiable in the hands of the Assessee in view of the judgments in case of Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax (2006) 155 TAXMAN 289 (RAJ.), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR -II V. MORANI AUTOMOTIVES (P.) LTD. [2014] 264 CTR 86 (RAJASTHAN-HC), CIT v. Orissa Corpn

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 143(3) read with Section 153A(1)(b) in determining the total income of the Assessee of Rs. 14.5 crores against declared income of Rs. 3.44 crores. The ITAT deleted the additions on the ground that it was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of the search in respect of AYS under consideration

M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

68 of the Act is justifiable in the hands of the Assessee in view of the judgments in case of Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2006) 155 TAXMAN 289 (RAJ.), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR -II V. MORANI ITA 1053, 1188 & 1205/JP/2018 & CO 48/JP/2018_ 44 M/s Agrasen Agro Industries P Ltd. Vs DCIT AUTOMOTIVES

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

68 of the Act is justifiable in the hands of the Assessee in view of the judgments in case of Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2006) 155 TAXMAN 289 (RAJ.), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR -II V. MORANI ITA 1053, 1188 & 1205/JP/2018 & CO 48/JP/2018_ 44 M/s Agrasen Agro Industries P Ltd. Vs DCIT AUTOMOTIVES

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

68 of the Act is justifiable in the hands of the Assessee in view of the judgments in case of Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2006) 155 TAXMAN 289 (RAJ.), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR -II V. MORANI ITA 1053, 1188 & 1205/JP/2018 & CO 48/JP/2018_ 44 M/s Agrasen Agro Industries P Ltd. Vs DCIT AUTOMOTIVES

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

68 is liable to be deleted on account of above grounds as the addition was made by assessing authority on baseless grounds and without providing any proper opportunity and overlooking of documents submitted by appellant. Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT N. It is important to note that the appellant duly produces and submitted the identity of the creditors

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

68 is liable to be deleted on account of above grounds as the addition was made by assessing authority on baseless grounds and without providing any proper opportunity and overlooking of documents submitted by appellant. Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT N. It is important to note that the appellant duly produces and submitted the identity of the creditors