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

SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

200. The fee prescribed is Rs.200/- for every day during which the failure continues. Sub- section (2) further stipulates that the amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible as the case may be. 13. It is not in dispute that as per the existing provisions

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

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

200. The fee prescribed is Rs.200/- for every day during which the failure continues. Sub-section (2) further stipulates that the amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible as the case may be. 13. It is not in dispute that as per the existing provisions

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: The onus to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and it failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,26,72,500/- which is cash deposited in the bank during the period of demonetization is considered as unexplained cash credits……” Findings of the Ld. CIT(A): (Para 7 on Page

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal, partner in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) in reply to question No.30 (PB A.Y. 2016-17 pages 73-74) had categorically stated that these papers contain

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal, partner in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) in reply to question No.30 (PB A.Y. 2016-17 pages 73-74) had categorically stated that these papers contain

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal, partner in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) in reply to question No.30 (PB A.Y. 2016-17 pages 73-74) had categorically stated that these papers contain

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal, partner in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) in reply to question No.30 (PB A.Y. 2016-17 pages 73-74) had categorically stated that these papers contain

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal, partner in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) in reply to question No.30 (PB A.Y. 2016-17 pages 73-74) had categorically stated that these papers contain

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal, partner in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) in reply to question No.30 (PB A.Y. 2016-17 pages 73-74) had categorically stated that these papers contain

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 115BBE of the Act will have no application so as to treat the income of the assessee as income from other sources. As in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. [1994 (1) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] on identical facts took the view that when cash sales are admitted and income from sales are declared

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,SIKANDARA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

68, 69, 69A as the Learned Assessing Officer did not find any element of unexplained income. The survey was conducted at the business spot, where assessee exclusively carries his business only and does nothing else, hence, the course adopted by the Learned Assessing Officer was in accordance with law. The Learned PCIT Central is not justified in directing the Assessing

PRAKASH CHAND SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68, 69, 69A as the Learned Assessing Officer\ndid not find any element of unexplained income. The survey was conducted at the\nbusiness spot, where assessee exclusively carries his business only and does nothing\nelse, hence, the course adopted by the Learned Assessing Officer was in accordance\nwith law. The Learned PCIT Central is not justified in directing the Assessing

LAXMI NARAYAN SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

68, 69, 69A as the Learned Assessing Officer\ndid not find any element of unexplained income. The survey was conducted at the\nbusiness spot, where assessee exclusively carries his business only and does nothing\nelse, hence, the course adopted by the Learned Assessing Officer was in accordance\nwith law. The Learned PCIT Central is not justified in directing the Assessing

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. Brief facts pertaining to this ground of appeal are that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.7,44,45,200

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. Brief facts pertaining to this ground of appeal are that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.7,44,45,200

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 and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

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 and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak