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 of the Income-tax Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases where the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of the sums found credited in his books is not satisfactory, there is prima facie evidence against the assessee, viz, the receipt of money and that the burden

DINESH KUMAR SONI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

68 on account of unexplained cash credit on the basis of suspicion and surmises. Decision:- (v) The appellant deposited Rs. 58,00,000 in the old currency in his bank account during the period of demonetisation. The appellant has submitted that the source of the same is from the sales made by him in the pre-demonetisation period. From

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

160(1) of IT Act. The Ld CIT(A) taking into consideration that the each beneficiary is an independently invested in RVCF-II without any association with any other beneficiary trust. Hence, ground No. 4 of the Revenue appeal is dismissed. 16. Regarding Ground No. 2, whether the assessee trust is revocable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act is amended by the Finance Act, 2012 and the requirement to prove the source of the source is not applicable in the year under consideration as the assessment year is concerned in 2009-10. In the light of this facts of the case and the assessee based on law prevent in the year under

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI CHANDRA SURANA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Auditor. Any Stock Register Whatsoever Was Not Furnished During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings To Verify The Quantitative Sale Made During The Year Whether The Item Shown By The Assessee As Sold Was Actually In Stock Of The Assessee Or Not & Quantity & Value Of The Sale Shown Remains Unverified. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Ignoring The Vital Fact.

160/- by making addition of Rs.2,90,93,500/- in declared income by holding that said amount of cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account during the demonetization ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR VS SHRI CHANDRA SURANA period is nothing but the undisclosed income of assessee which was under the garb of cash sales, therefore, the cash deposited

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases where the explanation offered by the, assessee about the nature and source of the sums found credited in his books is not satisfactory, there is prima facie evidence against the assessee, viz., the receipt of money and that the burden

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 to 69D read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the AO has not brought to tax the surrendered income as per applicable provisions of the Act. 14.The AO has not verified the amount of Rs.45,85,897/- under the head “Staff Payable”. 15.The AO has not at all verified all the issues enumerated from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. POOJA KEDIA, JAIPUIR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 68 towards unsecured loan\namount unjustified as identity and creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of\ntransaction duly proved by way of documentary evidences.\n12. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of Labh Chand\nBohra Vs ITO (2010) 189 TAXMAN 141 held as under.\n\"So far as capacity of the lender is concerned

SHRI ANKUSH GOKHROO,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Diamond & Color Stones Through His Proprietorship Concern

Section 68 of the Act he has relied upon the following decisions:- • Uplaksh Metal Industries vs. CIT [2009] 177 Taxman 298 (Punjab & Haryana) • Smt. Rekha KrishnaRaj vs. ITO [2013] 33 taxmann.com 64 (Karnataka) • Smt. Rekha Krishnaraj vs. ITO [2017] 85 taxmann.com 256 (SC) • P.M. Abdulla vs. ITO [2015]60 taxmann.com 52 (Karnataka) • Suresh Kumar T. Jain

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 3 of the Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proved when,\nafter considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or\nconsiders its existence so probable that the prudent man ought, under the\ncircumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.\nSection 114 of the Evidence

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

section 3 of the Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proved when,\nafter considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or\nconsiders its existence so probable that the prudent man ought, under the\ncircumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.\nSection 114 of the Evidence

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

section 142(1) of the Act dated 13.02.2021 was asked to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of loan transactions. The assessee submitted details and on perusal of the same ld. AO noticed that it has failed to justify the unsecured loan from the following parties. (i) Aventez Media Technology- The assessee has received loan