RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68 to 69D has applied Section 115 BBE, which is incorrect as per the relevant scheme. 2.3. Ld. CIT(A) at Page 13 of her order has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd, ITA No. 157/JP/2017, for the proposition that the amendment brought about in Section

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68 to 69D has applied Section 115 BBE, which is incorrect as per the relevant scheme. 2.3. Ld. CIT(A) at Page 13 of her order has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd, ITA No. 157/JP/2017, for the proposition that the amendment brought about in Section

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

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

Bench: Him.

Section 68 of the Act…” • ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Roop Square Pvt Ltd ITA No. 198

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68. Aggrieved of the addition so made by ld.AO, assessee has preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), wherein ld. CIT(A) arbitrarily dismissed the appeal of assessee without considering the submission made, evidence adduced before him and soley relying upon the information received from the Investigation Wing and statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain through the same was retracted

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

198 ITR 297 (SC) has held that the proceedings under section 147 are for the benefit 5 Shri Rajesh Chachwani, Jaiupr. of the revenue and not for the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the matter not agitated in the original assessment cannot be permitted to be agitated in the reassessment proceedings unless relatable

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 of the act, this contention is fully backed because she has accepted the trading account and sales have sufficiently entered into such Books of Accounts under the head of Sales and the Net Profit as shown by the assessee in its Income Tax return has been culminated after taking consideration such sales in Financial figures on which

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 alleging that cash found during the course of search/seizure is not backed by valid Books of accounts as it has been rejected, but without bringing any cogent material in support of his contention and without bringing corroborative evidence and without considering the materials and explanations available on records in their true perspective and sense, therefore invocation of Section

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)

section 68, the sum found credited in the books of accounts for which the assessee offers no explanation, the said sum is deemed to be income of the assessee. In the instant case the assessee had explained the source as sales, produced the sale bills and admitted the same as revenue receipt. The assessee is engaged in the jewellery

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GORDHANDAS NANDKISHORE JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed with no orders as to

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68 read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the large cash deposit of demonetised currency made by the assessee, an individual deriving income from the business of trading in bullion, precious stones, diamond and manufacturing of jewellery in his proprietorship concern, treating it as his undisclosed income. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

68 being establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor, could not have been presumed by the Ld. Pr. CIT and consequently, he could not have expected the AO to get the same proved by the assesse to the hilt. However, no permission was sought to expend the scope of the scrutiny. The fact that the subjected amount received towards

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

68 being establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor, could not have been presumed by the Ld. Pr. CIT and consequently, he could not have expected the AO to get the same proved by the assesse to the hilt. However, no permission was sought to expend the scope of the scrutiny. The fact that the subjected amount received towards

RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is illegal, unlawful and unjust. The provisions of Sec 68 of the IT Act, 1961 are quoted as under :- ”Cash credits. 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

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)

Sections 68 and 69C of the Act to treat the unexplained credits and commission payments as taxable income. IV. Judicial Precedents Supporting Revenue’s Position 1. CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. [198

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to interfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority." The onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the interest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively only for the purpose of making investments which

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

Bench: Him.

68 of the Act and burden of proving CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR that apparent is not real. Heavy burden is 540 (SC) required to be discharged by department to prove that apparent is not real. It is trite law that burden of proving that apparent (capital gain claim) is not real (bogus) is on the person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

section 143(3) were passed wherein the transactions of investment made in the shares of the assessee were not disturbed by the AO. Hence all these documentary evidences as well as the admitted facts clearly established that the assessee has discharged its onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants as well as genuineness

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

section 143(3) were passed wherein the transactions of investment made in the shares of the assessee were not disturbed by the AO. Hence all these documentary evidences as well as the admitted facts clearly established that the assessee has discharged its onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants as well as genuineness