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)

68 does not require that the amount is to be owned by the Assessee. It only deals with any amount shown in the books of accounts of the assessee whereas Section 69A deals with money, etc., owned by the assessee and found in his possession. – d) Riveria Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITA No. 250/Mum/2013

M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

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

Bench: Him.

section (2) to take the matter into account and undertake a protective assessment in the name of the Partner. The Assessing Officer is directed to reopen the case of the said Partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar, and undertake the assessment on a protective basis. 11. DECISION: 11.1 The ground of appeal fails. The additions are sustained and assessment

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

211-281)\nWith the above details, it is very much evident that the assessee company has\nsold the goods manufactured by it to M/s Mamta Trading Co. in the regular\ncourse of business and had received the payments against such sale through\nbanking channels in its bank account. Since the transaction of sales is duly\nbacked by the necessary evidences

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

Section 115BBE of the Act\nfor the addition already made u/s 68 of the Act,supra.\n10. Thereafter, based on outcome of such enquiries and verification,\nnecessary additions, wherever required, may be made to the total\nincome of the assessee as per law by modifying the assessment order\nu/s 147/144B of the Act dated 15.04.2021. However

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the respective years. Hence, the amount of Rs. 3,35,33,211

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the respective years. Hence, the amount of Rs. 3,35,33,211

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the respective years. Hence, the amount of Rs. 3,35,33,211

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the respective years. Hence, the amount of Rs. 3,35,33,211

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the respective years. Hence, the amount of Rs. 3,35,33,211

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the respective years. Hence, the amount of Rs. 3,35,33,211

MUKESH JAIN HUF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

211 ITD 270 (Mumbai - Trib.)[21-01-\n2025]\nSection 69A, read with sections 68 and 147, of the Income

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

211 Common Paper Book Volume I Part I), page 40 dt. 25/07 (APB 213 Common Paper Book Volume I Part I), page 55 dt. 27/07 (APB 186 Common Paper Book Volume I Part I) and page 57 (APB 182 Common Paper Book Volume I Part I). It is submitted that the bare perusal of these pages together

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

211 Common Paper Book Volume I Part I), page 40 dt. 25/07 (APB 213 Common Paper Book Volume I Part I), page 55 dt. 27/07 (APB 186 Common Paper Book Volume I Part I) and page 57 (APB 182 Common Paper Book Volume I Part I). It is submitted that the bare perusal of these pages together

SHRI DINESH OJHA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 263 Whether there was any illegality in Tribunal's order - Held, no. The authorities below also rightly did not disbelieve the availability of the opening balance of trade debtors of Rs. 8,34,211/-. Therefore, the very fact of making recovery/realization there from of a lessor amount of Rs. 3,68

M/S RAJ AUTO WHEELS P LTD.,AJMER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AJMER

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

68 because the cash deposits become self-explanatory and such amount was received by the assessee from the customers against which the delivery of the vehicle was made to the customers. The question of sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,98,000 would not arise. Therefore, no addition was required to be made in respect of the amount which

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 68 Case pertains to Asst. Year 1966-67 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cash credits—Addition under s. 68—ITO can make addition under s. 68 as income from undisclosed sources, simultaneously with addition to trading results— However, assessee can claim the addition under s. 68 as covered by intangible additions to trading results—In the present case

CHOICE BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no.2 taken by the assessee company is allowed

section 148 was issued and assessment u/s 147 read with 143(3) of the Act was completed wherein the AO made an addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- u/s 68 in respect of share application money received by the assessee company during the year under consideration. 3. In respect of ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the action

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

section 69B of the Act. This section reads as under:- "Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, and the Assessing Officer finds