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

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

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 145(3) of the Act, the AO has to bring on record material on the basis of which he has arrived at the conclusion with regard to correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee or the method of accounting employed by it. In the instant case, it was not the case that the assessee

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 of the act, of Rs. 90,00,000/- alleging that Cash as found from Business Premises is unexplainable though it is very much included in the Sales of the assesse of concerned period and profit has been offered for Tax on such amount (Rs. 90,00,000) too and similarly accepted by the Ld. AO during

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

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section 145(3) of the Act, the AO has to bring on record material on the basis of which he has arrived at the conclusion with regard to correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee or the method of accounting employed by it. In the instant case, it was not the case that the assessee

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

68 of the Act by 2 SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD 4(5), JAIPUR holding that gain of Rs.10,05,000/- on sale of shares of Comfort Intech Ltd. is bogus by making various incorrect and irrelevant observations and ignoring the fact that the assessee has incurred loss in the share trading. He has further erred in not allowing

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

Bench: Him.

68 of the Act without properly considering the Remand Report and various facts finding during the assessment proceeding. 5. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,35,43,168/- disallowed of interest on above unexplained unsecured loan and thereby the reducing the same

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRATEEK KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

68 of Income Tax Act. The assessee has filed confirmation letters and affidavit of cash creditors before the AO who has admitted giving of money to the assessee as a loan. The ld AO has erred in making addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- even in the facts and circumstances of the assessee and the learned AO has no material

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act 9. In the light of the above, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Assessee has essentially emanated from a misconception that the Additions made under Section 698/69C have to be reduced to some extent by giving leverage to the Assessee to claim some deductions from these Additions as well. If the contention

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 68. 26 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

68. The court ruled that without\nconcrete evidence to establish the identities of the creditors, any addition\nto the income of the assessee based on unexplained cash credits is\n\n54\nITA Nos.480/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Karnani Solvex Private Ltd.\n\nunwarranted.\n\n10.5 Moreover, in the Supreme Court decision of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P)\nLtd

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (share\ntransactions) Assessment year 2011-12 Assessee-company was engaged in\nbusiness of trading in shares, securities, equity and currency derivatives, mutual\nfunds, etc. Assessee filed its return of income which was accepted and an\nassessment order was passed -Subsequently, Assessing Officer issued a reopening\nnotice

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

section 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the\nassessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have\nheld in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases (CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP\nfiled by the Revenue against

CREATIVE REALMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 68\nunless it can be shown by the department that the source of such\nmoneys come from the assessee himself or such source could be\ntraced to the assessee itself. In the present case, while the existence\nof the creditor is not in doubt & he has admitted to have advance the\nloan to the assessee, the fact that

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

68, 69B etc. In the present case, the income\nsurrendered was to be classified u/s 69 - As per the direction of the Ld. PCIT, however,\nwe find that the Ld. PCIT has nowhere pointed out any contravention that the income\nsurrendered by the assessee falls within the provision of section 69 of the Act. As such,\nthe assessee