SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961). 10. While making the assessment order the assessing officer has also added a sum of Rs. 12,46,718/- as bogus agricultural income for the year under consideration. The relevant observation of the assessing and submission on this issue is extracted here in below for the sake of brevity Bogus agricultural income claimed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961). 10. While making the assessment order the assessing officer has also added a sum of Rs. 12,46,718/- as bogus agricultural income for the year under consideration. The relevant observation of the assessing and submission on this issue is extracted here in below for the sake of brevity Bogus agricultural income claimed

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961). 10. While making the assessment order the assessing officer has also added a sum of Rs. 12,46,718/- as bogus agricultural income for the year under consideration. The relevant observation of the assessing and submission on this issue is extracted here in below for the sake of brevity Bogus agricultural income claimed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961). 10. While making the assessment order the assessing officer has also added a sum of Rs. 12,46,718/- as bogus agricultural income for the year under consideration. The relevant observation of the assessing and submission on this issue is extracted here in below for the sake of brevity Bogus agricultural income claimed

SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961, the AO has to examine three\ningredients ie., identity, genuineness of transactions and\ncreditworthiness of the parties. In this factual and legal background, if\nyou examine, the present case in the light of various evidences filed by\nthe assessee, in order to prove credit found in the form of share capital\nand

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. TRUGOLD BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

183 Taxman 277 (Delhi), it was held that since it is a finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the credit balance appearing in the accounts of assessee, did not pertain to the year under consideration, under these circumstances, the assessing officer was not justified in making the impugned addition under section 68

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

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

183 (SC)\nIn this regard reference is made to section 292BB of the Act:-\nNotice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances.\n292BB. Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or co-\noperated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment, it\nshall be deemed that any notice under any provision of this Act, which is\nrequired

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Bank deposits)\n Assessment year 2013- 14 - During year, assessee had made cash deposits of\ncertain amount in his bank account Assessing Officer made additions on\naccount of same on ground that source of same was not explained by assessee\nIt was noted that assessee furnished number of sales invoices

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

section 68 of the Act is not applicable at all as no finding has been recorded by Ld. AO that there is any sum found credited in books of accounts. The case of the Assessee is not of any unexplained cash credit as no such case has been made out by the Ld. AO. v. SEBI vs Rakhi Trading

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA vs. SH. VINOD KUMAR JAIN, KOTA

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

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

section 68 the sum should be credited in the books of an assessee for any previous year. Hence, the addition u/s 68 can be made in the year when the sum is credited for the first time. Here the credit was found to be prior to 01.04.2013. Hence addition made u/s 68 is not found to be sustainable. This

SHANTI KUMAR SETHI AND SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Was Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Circle-01, Jaipur.

68, liable to be taxed u/s 115BBE. 6.2 The appellant in its justification for not offering the delayed interest under IDS has submitted "that if the Assessee would not have declared interest income of Rs. 55,65,000/- on the delayed recoveries of market lending, the Department would have raised the question for earning interest for the delayed period

RAJASTHAN LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872 it is amply clear that these loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of accounts regularly kept in the course of business". 22. The AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer had failed to consider that Nikhil Tripathi had every reason to make false statement regarding the payment

PARSHWANATH BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

183 170 711. (Copy Enclosed as Amenre-57 The decision was with respect to an appeal filed against the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 was challenged. In that order it was held that the order passed by the AO was not erroneous. In that case, the assessee stated that the source of cash deposited in bank

PARSHAVNATH ASSOCIATES, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

183 170 711. (Copy Enclosed as Amenre-57 The decision was with respect to an appeal filed against the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 was challenged. In that order it was held that the order passed by the AO was not erroneous. In that case, the assessee stated that the source of cash deposited in bank

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

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the\nCourts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on\n'merits'. The expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is\nadequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a\nmeaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the\nlife

AJEET KUMAR RAMPURIA,TONK vs. ITO WARD 7(2), TONK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 or section 69 of the Act is on the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that explanation offered by the assessee should be carefully examined by the AO to ascertain whether all the ingredients of the onus are proved by the assessee or not. The assessee is required to discharge the onus by producing evidence