SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 treatings deposits of SBNs found in its bank\naccount as unexplained credit in hands of assessee Held, yes [Paras 70 to 77] [In\nfavour of revenue]\"\nThe relevant paras from the order are as under:-\n\"72. Furthermore, the conduct of the assessee was abnormal and it had caused\nimmense harm to well intention notification

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 cannot be applied to the income which is already recorded in the books of account and the source of receipt is explained out of the stock already available with the assessee. To support these contentions the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following case laws : 30 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, 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)

20,000/- in its bank account and the assessee could not explain the source of part of the cash deposits in the bank account, therefore, it establishes that the assessee violates the provisions of section 110 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. In view of the above discussed facts as well as provisions of Section

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

3). Under such circumstance, no\naddition can be made to the income of the assessee under Section 68.\n2.40. The aforementioned legal and factual position was submitted to the NFAC\nduring the course of first appellant proceedings, however without any cogent\nbasis were not accepted by the NFAC.\n2.41. Rebuttal to certain contentions raised by NFAC in its order

SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 115BBE 9. That the appellant craves to add/alter/amend the Grounds of Appeal before the final hearing is completed. 3 Geeta Devi Agarwal vs. ITO 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 05.08.2017 declaring total income

GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

section 115BBE 9. That the appellant craves to add/alter/amend the Grounds of Appeal before the final hearing is completed. 3 Geeta Devi Agarwal vs. ITO 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 05.08.2017 declaring total income

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

3 Sanjay Lunia vs.ITO declared income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason of 'Cash deposit’ during demonetization period". A notice u/s 143 (2) of Income tax Act, 1961 was issued on 22.09.2018 fixing the case for hearing on 27.09.2019 which was duly served upon the assessee on 22.09.2019 through e-mail. In compliance

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

3. CIT (Appeals), Jaipur - 5 3.1. The appellant assessee filed first appeal against the above mentioned additions of Rs. 4,35,91,454/-. 3.2. Before the CIT (Appeals), elaborated submissions were made by the assesse which have also been reproduced at page 5 to 25 of the impugned order. 3.3. Ld. CIT (A), without any cogent basis, dismissed the appeal

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

section 12AA as a charitable entity undertaking educational activity and thus qualify as an eligible entity for receiving contributions from the assessee society. The contribution of Rs 3,86,84,912 is made by the assessee society out of income generated during the year under consideration as apparent from the return of income and computation of income available

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3. The assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. 5.3 Before comments are made on the action by the ld. assessing officer vis- a-vis facts of the case it would be worthwhile to discuss general principle relating to section 68 and what constitute books of accounts

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3. The assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. 5.3 Before comments are made on the action by the ld. assessing officer vis- a-vis facts of the case it would be worthwhile to discuss general principle relating to section 68 and what constitute books of accounts

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3. The assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. 5.3 Before comments are made on the action by the ld. assessing officer vis- a-vis facts of the case it would be worthwhile to discuss general principle relating to section 68 and what constitute books of accounts

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3. The assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. 5.3 Before comments are made on the action by the ld. assessing officer vis- a-vis facts of the case it would be worthwhile to discuss general principle relating to section 68 and what constitute books of accounts

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

20,41,331/- and TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

20,41,331/- and TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

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

Bench: Him.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

68,800—\nTherefore, the only available remedy to the assessee in respect of her capital\ngain is under s. 50C, which cannot be dispensed with merely due to the\nreason that the Valuation Officer has not chosen to pass orders regarding the\nvaluation in time—Therefore, order passed by AO accepting stamp duty value\nwithout waiting for report

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

68 of the Act of Rs. 10,53,700/- lacs were made on account of the fact that the amount of Rs. 10,53,700/- lacs were deposited in the bank account and the assessee had filed to explain the source of cash deposits. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before