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)

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. 4.25. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f

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

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 from Page 21

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)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a),the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

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 and charging income tax as per section 115BBE, the learned AO erred in ignoring various related papers, documents and explanation furnished/produced for the financial year 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 before the AO: i) Month wise details of stock inter alia giving figures of opening stock of each month. ii) Copy of stock register maintained

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

21 & 22, old Ind. Area, Alwar Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAQ PD7663J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 16/03/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

21 & 22, old Ind. Area, Alwar Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAQ PD7663J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 16/03/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

21 & 22, old Ind. Area, Alwar Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAQ PD7663J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 16/03/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

21 & 22, old Ind. Area, Alwar Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAQ PD7663J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 16/03/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

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 /

21,46,600/- inter-alia making the following additions. S Particulars Amount No. 1 Unexplained income under section 69A on account of Cash 8,85,500.00 deposit in bank 885000/- u/s 68

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)

21,46,600/- inter-alia making the following additions. S Particulars Amount No. 1 Unexplained income under section 69A on account of Cash 8,85,500.00 deposit in bank 885000/- u/s 68

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)

21. Section 37 of the Act is a residual provision envisaging deduction in respect of items of business expenditure not covered by preceding sections, for the purposes of computing business income. The conditions which have to be fulfilled for an item of expenditure to be deductible under section 37(1) as laid down by the various courts

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)

21. Section 37 of the Act is a residual provision envisaging deduction in respect of items of business expenditure not covered by preceding sections, for the purposes of computing business income. The conditions which have to be fulfilled for an item of expenditure to be deductible under section 37(1) as laid down by the various courts

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

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

68,69,69A,69B,69C or 69D. 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities as regards the addition sustained. As regards the charge of tax u/s. 115BBE he has vehemently argued that provision section 4 being the charging section does not support the contentions of the assessee so raised

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

68,69,69A,69B,69C or 69D. 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities as regards the addition sustained. As regards the charge of tax u/s. 115BBE he has vehemently argued that provision section 4 being the charging section does not support the contentions of the assessee so raised

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)

21 taxmann.com 159 117-120 2. CIT v. Chanakya Developers [2014] 43 taxmann.com 91 121-123 28 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT D. Once an assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness, then it is for the AO to conduct a further enquiry and call for more details before invoking Section 68

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. The cash deposits being SBNs in bank accounts of the assessee during demonetization period amounting to Rs. 6,76,59,000 are unexplained and alternatively taxable under section 69A of the Act. At the same time, since the sales are found to be bogus to that extent, Rs. 6,76,59,000 shall be reduced

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

Bench: Him.

section 68 did not apply, as the assessee had disclosed such donations as its income. 2.22. If the contention of the lower authorities is accepted that the same income would be taxed twice, once when being offered for tax by the assessee as part of cash 21

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68, it is evident that assessing officer can make addition u/s 68 only under two circumstances, i.e.: (i) Appellant does not offer any explanation about nature and source of such credit or (ii) Explanation offered by Appellant is not upto the satisfaction of Ld. AO. In other words, whenever Appellant provides explanation, before rejecting the same

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

21-02-2024) held that where assessee-firm could not establish source for cash deposits in old currency notes, same was to be brought to tax under section 69A read with section 115BBE. The facts of the case at hand is similar to the facts of that case. The assessee in the present case could not establish source