RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 cannot be made 1 ITO Vs. Amar Pratap Steels Pvt. Ltd. [2025] 170 taxmann.com 197 65-91 (Jaipur

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)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will

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

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

197, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ABUPK 2500 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27/09/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement

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), otherwise she could have invoked the same. Thus cold and hot breath cannot blow together. 15. Addition made without bringing any cogent material on record; Simultaneously Ld. AO could not bring any cogent material in support of his allegation that such founded Cash of Rs. 1,78,08,630/- is Unexplained Income, except suspicion for that

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 145(3) then only Fair Income may be estimated which should be based on past results if available, in this matter assesse has a long past history which are undisputable therefore in view of past history estimated profit should be calculated by applying a suitable Net Profit Ratio. Many landmark judgements are supporting this contention as follows

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act, is acceptable. However at the same time as stated above the unexplained cash is taxable under section 69A of the Act. And further in terms of income irrespective of availability of cash or not, is taxable as income from other sources. The assessment is modified accordingly. Since there is no quantum relief to the appellant

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

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133A of the Act, without any\nindependent corroborative evidence or material substantiating such addition, is legally\nunsustainable and devoid of merit. The settled position of law, consistently upheld by\nvarious judicial forums including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts, and\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunals, categorically holds that statements obtained during\nsurvey operations lack evidentiary value and cannot

SHRI ANKUSH GOKHROO,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Diamond & Color Stones Through His Proprietorship Concern

Section 68 of the Act he has relied upon the following decisions:- • Uplaksh Metal Industries vs. CIT [2009] 177 Taxman 298 (Punjab & Haryana) • Smt. Rekha KrishnaRaj vs. ITO [2013] 33 taxmann.com 64 (Karnataka) • Smt. Rekha Krishnaraj vs. ITO [2017] 85 taxmann.com 256 (SC) • P.M. Abdulla vs. ITO [2015]60 taxmann.com 52 (Karnataka) • Suresh Kumar T. Jain

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

68 of the Act, is\nacceptable. However at the same time as stated above the unexplained cash is\ntaxable under section 69A of the Act. And further in terms of income irrespective of\navailability of cash or not, is taxable as income from other sources. The\nassessment is modified accordingly.\nSince there is no quantum relief to the appellant

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

68 of the Act, is\nacceptable. However at the same time as stated above the unexplained cash is\ntaxable under section 69A of the Act. And further in terms of income irrespective of\navailability of cash or not, is taxable as income from other sources. The\nassessment is modified accordingly.\nSince there is no quantum relief to the appellant

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

68 of the Act,supra.\n10. Thereafter, based on outcome of such enquiries and verification,\nnecessary additions, wherever required, may be made to the total\nincome of the assessee as per law by modifying the assessment order\nu/s 147/144B of the Act dated 15.04.2021. However, the AO is directed\nto ensure that reasonable opportunities of being heard are provided

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

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

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

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

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

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act.” 4 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in business of Real estate. The assessee e-filed its return of income on 22.10.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 15,62,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. A notice

SPECTRUM FOODS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act. 3.15 During the spot verification done by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (I&CI) Unit-l, Mumbai in the case of brokers, this fact was also proved that the original client code was amended as per the requirement of the beneficiary and the profit/loss was reported on his demand. In return for providing