INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

section 68 of the Act. Obviously, in accommodation\nentries the lending or borrowing may be squared up and therefore, it is also\ncaught in the net of verification of its veracity. The assessee's arguments and\nreliance on various judicial precedents will also be dealt in this order later in\nrelevant paras.\n\n16. Considering the above discussion

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

202 ITD 552 (Chennai- Trib.)[11-07-2023] 10.2 We noted from the taxation law Second Amendment Act. 2016 that the Income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to clause (a) and clause (4) of section 11588E(1) of the Act af the rate

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 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.

202 CTR 515 (Allahabad)[19-01- 2005] it is held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as under:- "During the assessment year in question certain amount of cash credits standing in the names of various persons were added in the income of the applicant by invoking the provision of section 68

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.

202 CTR 515 (Allahabad)[19-01- 2005] it is held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as under:- "During the assessment year in question certain amount of cash credits standing in the names of various persons were added in the income of the applicant by invoking the provision of section 68

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.

202 CTR 515 (Allahabad)[19-01- 2005] it is held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as under:- "During the assessment year in question certain amount of cash credits standing in the names of various persons were added in the income of the applicant by invoking the provision of section 68

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.

202 CTR 515 (Allahabad)[19-01- 2005] it is held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as under:- "During the assessment year in question certain amount of cash credits standing in the names of various persons were added in the income of the applicant by invoking the provision of section 68

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, 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.

202 CTR 515 (Allahabad)[19-01- 2005] it is held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as under:- "During the assessment year in question certain amount of cash credits standing in the names of various persons were added in the income of the applicant by invoking the provision of section 68

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

section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961, the AO has to examine three\ningredients ie., identity, genuineness of transactions and\ncreditworthiness of the parties. In this factual and legal background, if\nyou examine, the present case in the light of various evidences filed by\nthe assessee, in order to prove credit found in the form of share capital\nand

SHREENATH HERITAGE LIQUOR PVT. LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the set off of carried forward

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

202 taxmann 262 (delhi) are also relied upon in this regard. 5.3.1 Now comes to the merit of the case. Since all the grounds are interconnected the same are adjudicated together. The main contention of AO is that the appellant could not prove the tenets of sec 68 of the Act in respect of loan taken from following 10 parties

AMAR PRATAP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 invoked and unsecured loan of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from the aforesaid companies treated as Non-genuine and was added to the total income of the assessee-company. In this proceeding ld. AO also noted that the assessee has made delayed payment of PF & ESI for an amount of Rs. 4,17,202

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

68 for the purpose of making additions on account of share capital. (Copy at Case Law PB 2-3 filed in case of M/s Kota Dall Mill) The revenue filed SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the above order, which has been dismissed vide SLP No 21186/2015 dated 07/12/2015 (Copy at Case Law PB 2-3) Therefore

M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

68 for the purpose of making additions on account of share capital. (Copy at Case Law PB 2-3 filed in case of M/s Kota Dall Mill) The revenue filed SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the above order, which has been dismissed vide SLP No 21186/2015 dated 07/12/2015 (Copy at Case Law PB 2-3) Therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

68 for the purpose of making additions on account of share capital. (Copy at Case Law PB 2-3 filed in case of M/s Kota Dall Mill) The revenue filed SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the above order, which has been dismissed vide SLP No 21186/2015 dated 07/12/2015 (Copy at Case Law PB 2-3) Therefore

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

68 of the Act. The Tribunal had applied the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in T.V. Sundariam Iyengar &Sons's case (supra) where the amount which was initially of capital nature but had changed its character to be of revenue nature, it was treated to be taxable income of the assessee. Thus, the amount

ACIT, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE vs. BALVIR SINGH TOMAR, ADARSH NAGAR

section 68 of the Act.\nLd. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer asked the\nassessee as to why higher cash balance was maintained as on 31.03.2016\nand that for an amount of Rs. 2,53,63,444/- the assessee had not given\nany justified reason.\nThe Id. AO noted that the merely because the assessee had declared\nhigher

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

68,47,908\n64,83,44,075\nGP/GP Rate Rs.\n67271908/12.77%\n155602459/24.00\nNP/NP rate Rs.\n12672574/2.41%\n115008372/17.74\n6. The details filed by the assessee and books of accounts have been examined\nparticularly to ascertain as to whether there has been any inter-unit adjustment of\nexpenses to adjust profits with a view to maximize the deduction under section 10AA

SHRI RUPAL JAIAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

section 10(38) of the Act. 6 Smt. Rupal Jain, Jaipur. 4. Before us, the ld. A/R for the assessee submitted as under : “ i. That assessee appellant is an Individual and regularly filing his Income tax Return. ii. That during the year under consideration assessee had sold the shares of Rs 25,20,930/- of Sunrise Asian Limited Invested