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

68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice

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

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.

section 68 of the Act and consequently the aforesaid addition is directed to be deleted. The Ground of Appeal no. 2 & 4 are treated as allowed.’’ During the course of hearing, the ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and 2.3 prayed that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

Section, Sec 69 can be invoked only when the assessee has made investment and not recorded such investment in the books of accounts and offer no explanation or unsatisfactory explanation. Both the condition given in point 2 and 3 are cumulative and satisfaction of either of condition does not automatically triggers rigours of Sec 69. In other words

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act.  The deletion of this addition by the CIT (A) without any discussion of the issue in his Appeal Order is perverse and bad in law.  The nature of the transaction could not be proved by the assessee.  Rupal Jain vs Commissioner of Income tax (2023) 152 taxmann.com 346 (SC)  MrsRupal Jain vs Commissioner

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the IT Act is deleted. Appeal of the assessee is\nallowed.\nITA NO. 1115/JPR/2025 AY 2018-19 :\n11.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in\ninfrastructure work viz. road construction for Government of Rajasthan and\nGovernment of India under the PWD and NHAI. The assessee company has filed\nreturn of income

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the IT Act is deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA NO. 1115/JPR/2025 AY 2018-19 : 11. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in infrastructure work viz. road construction for Government of Rajasthan and Government of India under the PWD and NHAI. The assessee company has filed return of income

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

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

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

section 40(a)(i) of the Act on commission paid to non-resident commission agent on vague and irrelevant consideration. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1of the assessee wherein brief facts of the case

VIJIT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the\nbooks maintained by the assessee, that such credit has to be of a sum during\nthe previous year, and that the assessee offers no explanation about the nature\nand source of such credit found in the books or the explanation offered by the\nassessee

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

68 \"it was necessary for the assessee to prove\nprima facie the identity of creditors, the capacity of such creditors and\nlastly the genuineness of transactions\".\n8\nITA No. 599/JPR/2023\nCreative Realmart Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO\n9.4 Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd [1994]\n208 ITR 465 (Cal)], it was observed that

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section, Sec 69 can be invoked only when the assessee has made investment and not recorded such investment in the books of accounts and offer no explanation or unsatisfactory explanation. Both the condition given in point 2 and 3 are cumulative and satisfaction of either of condition does not automatically triggers rigours of Sec 69. In other words

M/S BALAJI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 is prospective and not retrospective. 12. It was further submitted that the AO, while rejecting the claim of the assessee Company, also held that the premium that was charged was too high and does not appear logical keeping in view the business activities and reputation of the company. It was submitted that ld. AO over-stepped

RISING STOCK TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (1), JAIPUR

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

section 68 in respect of share application money was justified - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 12 and 13] [In favour of revenue]" In this case before me, the appellant has essentially submitted the same paper evidence, like the confirmations, bank statements etc. which were submitted in the above case

SHRI MADAN LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

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

182 CTR 175 (Raj), Shanker Industries v/s CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) and First Point Finance Ltd (2006) 286 ITR 477 (Raj). 1.2.1 Identity Established: In the present case the facts are not denied that the assesse had alreadysubmitted Affidavits (duly notarized and attested) of Mr. Sukhvinder Singh and theother threecreditors as also their identity proof (Aadhar Card, Voter

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

182 Common Paper Book Volume I Part I). It is submitted that the bare perusal of these pages together at one go clearly reveals that the entries so mentioned therein which have gross weight and net weight of various items, are obviously related to some memorandum stock taking. It is submitted that the Ld. AO has considered the details mentioned

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

182 Common Paper Book Volume I Part I). It is submitted that the bare perusal of these pages together at one go clearly reveals that the entries so mentioned therein which have gross weight and net weight of various items, are obviously related to some memorandum stock taking. It is submitted that the Ld. AO has considered the details mentioned

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

68. In para 23 of the decision in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), it was observed as under: "23. This court is of opinion that the ITAT's findings do not reveal any fundamental error, calling for correction. The inferences drawn in respect of undeclared income were premised on the materials found as well as the statements recorded by the assessees