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)

68,69,69A,69B,69C or 69D. 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities as regards the addition sustained. As regards the charge of tax u/s. 115BBE he has vehemently argued that provision section 4 being the charging section does not support the contentions of the assessee so raised

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)

68,69,69A,69B,69C or 69D. 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities as regards the addition sustained. As regards the charge of tax u/s. 115BBE he has vehemently argued that provision section 4 being the charging section does not support the contentions of the assessee so raised

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

section 68, it is evident that assessing officer can make\naddition u/s 68 only under two circumstances, i.e.:\nor\n(i)\n(ii)\nAppellant does not offer any explanation about nature and source of such credit\nExplanation offered by Appellant is not upto the satisfaction of Ld. AO.\nIn other words, whenever Appellant provides explanation, before rejecting the\nsame

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)

section 68, it is evident that assessing officer can make addition u/s 68 only under two circumstances, i.e.: (i) Appellant does not offer any explanation about nature and source of such credit or (ii) Explanation offered by Appellant is not upto the satisfaction of Ld. AO. In other words, whenever Appellant provides explanation, before rejecting the same

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)

68 of the Act. 2. Accommodation Entries from Non-Existent Entities o Investigations revealed that the entities providing share application money were shell companies controlled by Shri Mukesh Banka. These entities were non-existent and lacked creditworthiness, as confirmed by third-party inquiries and statements. 3. Unexplained Commission Payments o Commission payments of ₹3,25,010/- were found

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

2)(b) of\nRules, addition made u/s 68 was to be deleted.\nDCIT Vs. BDR Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. (2023) 199 ITD 757\n(Delhi) (Trib.)\nWhere AO made addition to income of assessee on account of\nunexplained source of share capital and share premium, since assessee\nhad furnished names and addresses of shareholders and proved their\nidentity, creditworthiness

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

199 (Kolkata Trib.) 48. In view of the above, Impugned Order passed u/s 263 is without authority of law and Ld. PCIT was not justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. GROUND NO. 2 Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT, has erred in passing the Impugned Order without providing

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SONI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 199-I of PMGKY. However, the A.O. has allowed credit of amount of disclosed income in PMGKY from total income and so there being no consequence to assessee so the same was not objected to. 36. The Ld CIT(A) in para 23 of appeal gave his findings. For ready reference the said findings are reproduced herein below

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SONI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 199-I of PMGKY. However, the A.O. has allowed credit of amount of disclosed income in PMGKY from total income and so there being no consequence to assessee so the same was not objected to. 36. The Ld CIT(A) in para 23 of appeal gave his findings. For ready reference the said findings are reproduced herein below

SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SONI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 199-I of PMGKY. However, the A.O. has allowed credit of amount of disclosed income in PMGKY from total income and so there being no consequence to assessee so the same was not objected to. 36. The Ld CIT(A) in para 23 of appeal gave his findings. For ready reference the said findings are reproduced herein below

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SONI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 199-I of PMGKY. However, the A.O. has allowed credit of amount of disclosed income in PMGKY from total income and so there being no consequence to assessee so the same was not objected to. 36. The Ld CIT(A) in para 23 of appeal gave his findings. For ready reference the said findings are reproduced herein below

SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SONI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 199-I of PMGKY. However, the A.O. has allowed credit of amount of disclosed income in PMGKY from total income and so there being no consequence to assessee so the same was not objected to. 36. The Ld CIT(A) in para 23 of appeal gave his findings. For ready reference the said findings are reproduced herein below

SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SONI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 199-I of PMGKY. However, the A.O. has allowed credit of amount of disclosed income in PMGKY from total income and so there being no consequence to assessee so the same was not objected to. 36. The Ld CIT(A) in para 23 of appeal gave his findings. For ready reference the said findings are reproduced herein below

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

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

2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai -\nTrib.) as under:-\n\"3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to\ndischarge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to\nsatisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts.\nThe burden has to be discharged with positive material

RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68. The action of the Learned Assessing Officer was not justified as he doubted the signatures on confirmation purely on assumption and presumption. He did not obtain any FSL report before rejecting the confirmations. Further, copies of these confirmations have been scanned in the assessment order and apparently one can observe that signature of Laxmi Agarwal and Suman

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 of the I.T. Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013, AO ought to have enquired 10 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur about the source of the amounts so credited / invested along with documentary evidence, which AO failed to do. 5. In the year under reference there is large

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 of the I.T. Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013, AO ought to have enquired 10 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur about the source of the amounts so credited / invested along with documentary evidence, which AO failed to do. 5. In the year under reference there is large

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