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)

68 of the Act. In view of above, it is submitted that the assessment order passed is grossly incorrect, based on false assumption and allegation, and without considering the detailed documents submitted during the assessment proceeding the therefore the additions made be directed to be deleted. In addition, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the considering the material placed

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)

68 and 69A of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The Appellate prays to leave, to add, to alter, amend, the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of appeal

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

Bench: Him.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against

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

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, 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. A AND J INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED, JHOTWARA

section 68 of the Act.\nIn para 7.6, the Assessing Officer observed that the entry providers\nhad admitted in their statements to have received Supreme Group\ncommission @ 2% for providing accommodation entry.\nIn this regard, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.29,60,000/-\nto the total income of the assessee, as provided

A AND J INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 68 of the Act.\nIn para 7.6, the Assessing Officer observed that the entry providers\nhad admitted in their statements to have received Supreme Group\ncommission @ 2% for providing accommodation entry.\nIn this regard, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.29,60,000/-\nto the total income of the assessee, as provided

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

Bench: Him.

173 (Gujarat) Principal Commissioner of Income- tax. v. Gopal Heritage (P.) Ltd Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash

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

173 (Kerala) is as under: 22 DCIT vs. M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. "I. Section 153A, read with sections 132 and 132A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Submission of returns for six years) -Assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09- Whether any material unearthed during search operations

GIRDHARI LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

173 TTJ 68 (Jp. Trib) 18 Girdhari Lal Meena vs. ITO  Commissioner of Income-tax-iv v. Text Hundred India (P.) Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 57 (Hel-HC)  National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)  Ajay Goyal vs. ITO (2006) 099 TTJ 0164 (Jodh-Trib)  CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 13 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922] - Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts - On assessee's inability to supply addresses of purchasers who purchased goods on cash, ITO rejected assessee's books of account showing result in respect of cash sale transactions, and made addition

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

SHOBHA TOMAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145(3) of Act . Ld. CIT(A) was not justified sustaining addition of Rs.80,96,000/- out of Rs.99,96,000/- made by ld. AO for bank deposits in period of demonetization of currency notes more so when the receipts or sources of cash appearing in cashbook (P.B. page 6 to 32) were accepted as genuinely explained. From

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

173 taxmann.com 834 (Delhi) Abha Gupta v. Income-tax Officer*\n\nSection 148, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping\nassessment Issue of notice for (Reassessment) Assessment year 2013-14\nAssessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on basis of information received\nfrom Investigation Wing relating to certain share transactions alleging that sell

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Section 68. • Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to make enquires u/s 68. Accordingly, ld. AO appropriately did not transgress his jurisdiction. Action of the ld. AO was well in accordance with the law. 2.3. Regarding whether jurisdiction could be assumed by the ld. PCIT, in the present case, following contentions were raised by the assessee company, before ld. PCIT

SMT. MANJU AGRAWAL,BHARTPUR vs. ITO, BHARTPUR

In the result, the ground no

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

173 "Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where assessee could not explain receipt of alleged share transactions profits credited in 4 SMT. MANJU AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD -1, BHARATPUR his bank accounts, then sale proceeds had to be added as income of assessee under section 68