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

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

section 68 of the Act as the same cannot be\nmade without rejecting the books of account of the assessee\nregularly maintained by the assessee and the said cash deposited is\nduly supported by the entries passed in the books of account and\npart of the sale accepted by the AO.\n2.23.ii. ACIT Central Circle-1 vs. Shri Mahendra

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)

68 of the Act. “ To attract deeming provision of sections 69A of the Act the foremost requirements that is to be followed is that the income should be from any other source rather than from its regular source of earning. Further, ld CIT(A) has not issued notice u/s 251(2) of I.Tax Act as this finding is amount

DR. VISHAN SWAROOP GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 13/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Cuke Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 2, Scheme No. 2, Arya Ward 7(3) Vihar Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abipg 2253 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer) In Making An Addition Of Rs. 4,03,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act As Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposited In Bank Accounts. 2. The Appellant Contends That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Ought Not To Have Upheld The Action Of 2

section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this account itself the impugned addition deserves to be deleted. I hold so." We further find that a similar view had also been arrived at in a 'third member' decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Raitani Vs. ACIT (2011) 10 taxmann.com 206

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(2) of Income Tax Act 1961 was issued on 09-08-2018. The assessee deposited Rs. 1,41,32,000/- in demonetized currency during the demonetization period 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. The AO made the addition of Rs. 1,41,32,000/- and the assessment of the assessee was completed by AO vide her order dated

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

VINOD GUPTA,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHUNJHUNU

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the I.T. Act are not attracted to the amounts representing purchases made on credit.  Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Jagdish Prasad Tewari (220 Taxman 141, has held that where the assessee had made payments to the creditors through cheques, merely because some creditors had not confirmed the receipts, no addition as cash credit

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this account itself the\nimpugned addition deserves to be deleted. I hold so.\"\nWe further find that a similar view had also been arrived at in a 'third member' decision\nof the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Raitani Vs. ACIT (2011) 10 taxmann.com 206

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)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 are fulfilled by the appellant and no addition can be made in its case. 5 DCIT vs. Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. However, the assessing officer did not found the submission made by the appellant acceptable. The AO has noted that the investors do not have any substantial business. There is either no profit or very meager profit

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR NOWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 cannot be made. i) Rs. 12,00,000/- was deposited in non-demonetized currency on 28.03.2017, which too offered for Income under “Pradhanmantri Garib Kalyan Yojna-2016” At the outset we would like to submit that the entire finding and addition so made by ld. AO is regarding the cash deposited in demonetized currency. The addition was made without

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

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

Section 143(3) of the Act. This, therefore, was not material which was subsequently unearthed during the search which was not already available to the AO. Consequently, the additions sought to be made by the AO on account of security deposits were rightly deleted by the CIT (A).” Thus the essential corollary of these decisions is that no addition

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

Section 143(3) of the Act. This, therefore, was not material which was subsequently unearthed during the search which was not already available to the AO. Consequently, the additions sought to be made by the AO on account of security deposits were rightly deleted by the CIT (A).” Thus the essential corollary of these decisions is that no addition

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section 68 of the IT Act. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the repayment of loan for credit entries also does not in itself prove the transactions to be genuine. Shell companies are used to provide accommodation entries and even reversal of an entry does not ipso facto prove the genuineness of the initial credit entry. In support

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

section 68 of the IT Act. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the repayment of loan for credit entries also does not in itself prove the transactions to be genuine. Shell companies are used to provide accommodation entries and even reversal of an entry does not ipso facto prove the genuineness of the initial credit entry. In support

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section 68 of the IT Act. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the repayment of loan for credit entries also does not in itself prove the transactions to be genuine. Shell companies are used to provide accommodation entries and even reversal of an entry does not ipso facto prove the genuineness of the initial credit entry. In support

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section 68 of the IT Act. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the repayment of loan for credit entries also does not in itself prove the transactions to be genuine. Shell companies are used to provide accommodation entries and even reversal of an entry does not ipso facto prove the genuineness of the initial credit entry. In support

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. POOJA KEDIA, JAIPUIR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 68, the assessee is under the\nobligation to prove the following to avoid application of the deeming provision\nwhich has been considered by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs.\nPrecision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994)208 ITR 465 (Cal) which laid down the following\ncriteria: -\n1. Identity of his creditors;\n2. Capacity of creditors to advance