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)

68 read with Section 115BBE by the ld. AO to the amount of cash sales of Rs. 4,35,91,454/- which is duly accounted for in the books of account by the assessee and thereafter this amount deposited by the assessee in his bank accounts, is illegal and deserves to be quashed. Ground of Appeal No. 8 This

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. To support his view ld. AO relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-VI Vs. T. S. Kishan & Co. Ltd., [2014] 50 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi) and decision of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Shankar Industries Vs. Commissioner

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)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will

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

Bench: Him.

208 days in filing the appeal. 8. That the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor due to any negligence or mala fide intention on my part but was caused due to the reasons mentioned above, which were beyond my control. 9. That the contents of my Condonation application are true and correct.” 3 Jitendra Kumar TahilramanI

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving the following findings:- 10 SDC Construction, Jaipur. “Decision:- 3. I have examined facts of the case as also gone

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

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)

68 of the Act "? 11. "That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing of the appeal". 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and/or survey action

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)

68 of the Act "? 11. "That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing of the appeal". 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and/or survey action

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)

68 of the Act "? 11. "That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing of the appeal". 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and/or survey action

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)

68 of the Act "? 11. "That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing of the appeal". 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and/or survey action

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)

68 of the Act "? 11. "That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing of the appeal". 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and/or survey action

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)

68 of the Act "? 11. "That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing of the appeal". 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and/or survey action

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" it was necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the identity of creditors, the capacity of such creditors and lastly the genuineness of transactions". 7.4 Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd [1994] 208

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V.P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/(2007) 210 CTR 20 (SC)[15-05-2007] has held as under:- "May be the money came by way of bank cheques and paid through the process of banking transaction