KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

section 68 and added it\nto income of assessee On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition\nOn revenue's appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs.\n19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of 'D' Ltd. which were converted\ninto drafts and in this manner 'D' Ltd. subscribed to share application of assessee\ncompany

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI vs. M/S ARAVALI PRIME CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BUNDI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with no order as to cost

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties

section 68. [CIT v Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. [2010] 194 Taxman 43 (Delhil]. Having no business activity or having

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 and doing so would result in double taxation of the same income. As observed above, the lower authorities have not disputed this fact that the assessee has already included the entire cash sales in the total sales and the profits have been derived which were offered for tax, thus taxing the same income twice is against

RIDHIRAJ BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, NCRB, 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)

68 and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue necessary forms. Computation in ITNS 150 is enclosed which is part of this order. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r/w section 274 of the IT Act is initiated for concealment of income. 4. Being aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the assessee has filed an appeal

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

section 68 on account of cash deposits could not be made simply on the reason that during the demonetization period, cash deposits vis-à-vis cash sales ratio was higher. If customers during the period of demonetization purchased jewellery in cash which has been duly recorded in the books of account of the Appellant and also tallying with

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 68 says that “68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

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)

68. The same is not true. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 observed that where there is an unexplained credit, it is open to the AO to hold that it is income of the assessee, and no further burden lies on the AO to show that

DINESH KUMAR SONI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings on the issue:- “However in case the subject matter of addition is not expressly falling under

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 that the AO is required to prove that the funds originally belonged to the assessee in whose hands the addition is being done. Onus is on the assessee to provide the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness w.r.t. the credits. The credits received may have been money of someone else that is immaterial

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 that the AO is required to prove that the funds originally belonged to the assessee in whose hands the addition is being done. Onus is on the assessee to provide the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness w.r.t. the credits. The credits received may have been money of someone else that is immaterial

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 that the AO is required to prove that the funds originally belonged to the assessee in whose hands the addition is being done. Onus is on the assessee to provide the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness w.r.t. the credits. The credits received may have been money of someone else that is immaterial

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 that the AO is required to prove that the funds originally belonged to the assessee in whose hands the addition is being done. Onus is on the assessee to provide the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness w.r.t. the credits. The credits received may have been money of someone else that is immaterial

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 that the AO is required to prove that the funds originally belonged to the assessee in whose hands the addition is being done. Onus is on the assessee to provide the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness w.r.t. the credits. The credits received may have been money of someone else that is immaterial

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)

Section 68 because the cash deposits becomes self-explanatory and such amounts were received by the assessee from the customers against 21 Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT which the delivery of the vehicle was made to the customers. The question of sustaining the addition would not arise”. (ix) Asstt. CIT v. Dewas Soya Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 336/Ind/2012

M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

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

Bench: Him.

section (2) to take the matter into account and undertake a protective assessment in the name of the Partner. The Assessing Officer is directed to reopen the case of the said Partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar, and undertake the assessment on a protective basis. 11. DECISION: 11.1 The ground of appeal fails. The additions are sustained and assessment

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 because the cash deposits becomes self-explanatory and such amounts were received by the assessee from the customers against which the delivery of the vehicle was made to the customers. The question of sustaining the addition would not arise". Asstt. CIT v. Dewas Soya Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 336/Ind/2012], wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has observed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. RISHIRAJ SINGH, JHALAWAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 68 is hereby deleted.\n6.5 Grounds No.5: The assessing officer has made the addition of Rs.48,38,133/-\non account of sundry creditors. This assessee has submitted that majority of the\nSundry Creditors are Government Authorities and such creditors have been paid\nin succeeding years through banking channels and were outstanding on account\nof genuine business transactions

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

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

194 held that question of validity of notice may\nnot be allowed to be raised for the first time in appeal. Subsequent\nlegislative amendment adding section 292BB supports this principle. The\nquestion has, thus, to be answered against the assessee.\"\n(emphasis supplied)\nIt is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Income-tax Officer

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Income-tax Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases where the explanation offered by the, assessee about the nature and source of the sums found credited in his books is not satisfactory, there is prima facie evidence against the assessee, viz., the receipt of money and that the burden is on the assessee