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)

161-164): The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held as under: 3.The short question involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Siliguri CIT(A), after having fully agreed with the assessing officer for certain verifications. Section 251 of the Act deals with the powers of the Commissioner of Appeals. Sub-Section (1) states

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 on account of alleged bogus cash sales were deleted:- 4.14.i ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Smt. Charu Agarwal & M/s. Kalanidhi Jewellers Vs. DCIT ITA No. 310 & 311/Chd/2021 order dated 25/03/2022 The findings of Hon'ble ITAT is in para 10 of the order. Hon'ble ITAT after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 r.w.s. 115BBE. Reject plea for peak credit, unabsorbed depreciation, and MAT credit set-off. The ld. DR vide submission dated 14.07.2025 further submitted as under : I. Limitation Period Under Section 149(1)(b) is Fully Alive The assessee has contended that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. However, this contention is devoid of merit in view

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

68, read with Section 115BBE, by the Id.\nAO, to the amount of Rs. 1,71,28,000 accounted for sales by the assessee, is illegal\nand deserves to be quashed.\n6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance\nwas placed on the following evidence / records / decisions:\nCopy of the order of ITAT, Jaipur Bench

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice dated\n21.12.2018 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under section\n271AAB(1)(a)/271AAB(1)(c) should not be initiated against the assessee. Subsequently,\nthe Assessing Officer has imposed penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of Rs. 33,00,000/- vide\npenalty order

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

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

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

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

161/-and ESI amounting to Rs.4,34,636/- after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.50,48,797/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of Income Tax Act. 2.2 In first appeal, the after considering the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

1).\nThe above judgement also needs to be considered in the interpretation of the \nidentifying the block of 10 years of the section 153C of the Act. There are \nnumerous judgements wherein it has been held that provisions of section 158BD \nand 153C are in substance similar and in section 158BD the block period is not \ndependent

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68 of the Act read with section 115BBE \nof the Act. \n\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an \nappeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant \nfinding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: \n\nGround Nos.1, 2 & 3 \n\n5.2 I have considered

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.

161. (1) Every representative assessee, as regards the income in respect of which he is a representative assessee, shall be subject to the same duties, responsibilities and liabilities as if the income were income received by assessment in his own name in respect of that income; but any such assessment shall be deemed to be made upon

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68 of the Act read with section 115BBE\nof the Act.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an\nappeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant\nfinding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:\nGround Nos.1, 2 & 3\n5.2 I have considered the facts

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)

1, KOPPAL. (Copy at Case laws PB Page No 355-360) Unexplained cash deposits in two bank accounts - Legal tender money in demonetization of currency - AO culled out, the deposits that was made of bank notes that were declared as not legal tender owing to demonetization of currency - HELD THAT: - Both AO and CIT(A) accepted the fact that

BABU LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

68 of the IT Act, 1961, the application of provisions of section 115BBE\nhas become infructuous.\n==End of OCR for page 14==15\nITA No. 179 & 178/JP/2024\nShri Babu Lal Sharma, Jaipur.\n7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nITA No. 178/JP/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13.\nFor the sake of convenience, we first adjudicate

RAJESH AGARWAL,VIDHYADHARA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 4(1), ITO JAIPUR

68 of I.T. Act (a) That the learned CIT Appeal erred in\ndismissing of the appeal without considering facts, evidence and the\nwritten argument on record gist of grounds reproduce as under: 1 That\nthe learned Income Tax Officer conducted the whole assessment\nproceedings on the basis of observation given in survey proceedings\nagainst stock broker & conducted by the Investigation

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

BABU LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the IT Act, 1961, the application of provisions of section 115BBE has become infructuous. Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Jaipur. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 178/JP/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13. For the sake of convenience, we first adjudicate the additional ground as under : 8. The brief facts of the case

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

Bench: Him.

1,39,117. Dealing with the excess profits tax assessment, he also held that the said income was derived from the business of the appellant and hence it was liable to excess profits tax also.” 2.19. Ld. AO invoked provision of Section 68 in respect of sales. Section 68 deems non- income to be income. In the instant

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

161 Taxman 316 (SC) and subsequently reiterated in Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. [2015] 63 taxmann.com 177/[2016] 236 Taxman 1 (SC). 2.2 As per 2nd proviso to section 153A, assessment proceedings pending on the date of search shall abate. Further, in view of the provisions of section 153A(2), only the abated assessment