JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 164 (2) of the Act and the Court decision referred above. Thus Ground No. 1 is restored to file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5.1 In Ground No. 2, the assessee is aggrieved that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2) of the Act. Once the assessee has surrendered the income as income from other sources, then the same cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Baladi Ram vs. CIT, 71 ITR 427 (SC) and submitted that for attracting

DR. VISHAN SWAROOP GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 13/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Cuke Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 2, Scheme No. 2, Arya Ward 7(3) Vihar Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abipg 2253 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer) In Making An Addition Of Rs. 4,03,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act As Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposited In Bank Accounts. 2. The Appellant Contends That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Ought Not To Have Upheld The Action Of 2

2), Thane (2016) 73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - "I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68

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)

section 68 of the Act in absence of any details and documents. No response filed by the assessee. Therefore, the same sundry creditors amount of Rs. 2,23,24,871/- was added to the total income of the assessee treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act. In the absence of any arguments advanced

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)

section 68 of the Act in absence of any details and documents. No response filed by the assessee. Therefore, the same sundry creditors amount of Rs. 2,23,24,871/- was added to the total income of the assessee treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act. In the absence of any arguments advanced

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

164(2) is to be levied on the income earned from non-exempt asset - whether holding of ineligible assets is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) - Held that:- When the shares are forming part of corpus after 1st June, 1973, question of accretion does not even arise thus the investment in right-issue cannot

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.

164. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), where any income in respect of which the persons mentioned in clauses (iii) and (iv) of sub- section (1) of section 160 are liable as representative assessees or any part thereof is not specifically receivable on behalf or for the benefit of any one person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST, JAIPUR

16. As a result, finding no merit in the appeal filed by the department, the same is hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

2. The assessee is a trust. It was before Learned CIT(A) having felt aggrieved by the assessment order dated 16.12.2019 passed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), in relation to the aforesaid assessment order. 3. The assessee trust is admittedly registered u/s 12AA of the Act as per certificate

MANTIKA BENEFICIARY TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmantika Beneficiary Trust, D 122, Amba Bari, Jaipur – 302 012. Pan No.:Aaetm7086Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward- 7(1), Jaipur ...... Respondent

68,240/- on 27.07.2022. The return of the assessee trust was processed vide intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide dated: 24.05.2023, wherein a surcharge @ 37% was charged amounting to Rs. 91,500/- and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 7,012/-. Against this intimation, the assessee filed an application u/s. 154 of the Act before the CPC, Bengaluru

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

68,89,419/- i.e\n40,33,412/- on account of construction expenses and added in total income of\nthe assessee. without considering the fact that it was never claimed by the\nassessee appellant.\n7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Ld. Lower\nAuthority grossly erred in confirming the disallowance

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

68,89,419/- i.e\n40,33,412/- on account of construction expenses and added in total income of\nthe assessee. without considering the fact that it was never claimed by the\nassessee appellant.\n7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Ld. Lower\nAuthority grossly erred in confirming the disallowance

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

SITARAM BADRI NARAIN MAWAWALE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

164 taxmann.com 439 (Ahmedabad – Trib.) – head notes – “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credit (Cash deposit) – Assessment year 2017-18 – Assessee had made cash deposit during demonetization period in her bank account – Assessing Officer held that cash sales shown by assessee during period of 10 days just before demonetization was not genuine but fabricated and after

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

164-189) In the case it was held that where assessee's own interest-free funds in form of share capital and free reserves were more than its investment yielding exempt dividend income, impugned order passed by Assessing Officer making interest disallowance under section 14A in relation to such exempt income was to be set aside. (viii) HIGH COURT