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 of the IT Act 2 Additions under section 68 6,45,810.00 Total 15,31,310.00 Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

21. As we have held that Id CIT (A) has exceeded his jurisdiction in enhancing the income of the assessee by considering the new sources of income not at all considered by the Id AO, consequently we allow the ground no 9,10,11,12 and 13 of the appeal of the assessee where the addition u/s 68

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

5. The Ld A.R relied on certain case laws which are\nrelevant to the issue under consideration. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills\n(1974) 97 ITR 258 (Patna), it has been held that, when books of account of the\nassessee were R.S. Diamonds India Private Limited 3 accepted by the\nrevenue as genuine and cash balance shown therein

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)

5 to 25, may please be considered in correct perspective. 4.2. Assessee maintained regular books of accounts including day to day stock records. Books of accounts of the assessee stand Audited under the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the Audit report, there were no adverse remarks of the Auditors and the Auditors found

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)

5,51,000 Sale of Rice 2,97,000 Sale of Old Furniture 9,50,000 Sale of Paintings 1,85,800 Total Cash receipts 19,83,800 On perusal of aforesaid table it is evident that enough cash in hand available with him which was required to be deposited in bank account due to sudden demonetization by Government. Assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details of such additional Income offered is as under: Sr. No. A. Y. Particulars of Additional Income Amount 1 2010-11 Agricultural Income 13,70,630 2 2011-12 Agricultural Income 13,85,650 3 2012-13 Agricultural Income 11,91,969 4 2014-15 Agricultural Income 11,628 5

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details of such additional Income offered is as under: Sr. No. A. Y. Particulars of Additional Income Amount 1 2010-11 Agricultural Income 13,70,630 2 2011-12 Agricultural Income 13,85,650 3 2012-13 Agricultural Income 11,91,969 4 2014-15 Agricultural Income 11,628 5

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details of such additional Income offered is as under: Sr. No. A. Y. Particulars of Additional Income Amount 1 2010-11 Agricultural Income 13,70,630 2 2011-12 Agricultural Income 13,85,650 3 2012-13 Agricultural Income 11,91,969 4 2014-15 Agricultural Income 11,628 5

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details of such additional Income offered is as under: Sr. No. A. Y. Particulars of Additional Income Amount 1 2010-11 Agricultural Income 13,70,630 2 2011-12 Agricultural Income 13,85,650 3 2012-13 Agricultural Income 11,91,969 4 2014-15 Agricultural Income 11,628 5

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought to tax net by employing the mechanism of section 115JB. The Tribunal further held that section 115JB has not intended to bring all non-income items within the domain of the Act. (j)By inserting

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)

section 68 of the Act without appreciating that the said amount has already been credited to the profit and loss account on which tax has been paid by the Assessee therefore adding the same amount again has resulted in double addition which is grossly incorrect and therefore the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition made

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)

section 68 of the Act without appreciating that the said amount has already been credited to the profit and loss account on which tax has been paid by the Assessee therefore adding the same amount again has resulted in double addition which is grossly incorrect and therefore the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not 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)

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

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

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)

21,69,83,176.56 14,93,24,176.56 CIT(A) held that the sales of Rs. 6,76,59,000 is bogus which shall be reduced from sales shown by the appellant for the year. Closing Stock 5,25,60,282.42 5,25,60,282.42 CIT(A) made no findings for closing stock which means he has accepted stock . Total

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case