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 of the Act and taxable @ 60% under the provision of Section 115BE of the Act. It is also noted from the order of the ld. CIT(A) at para 4.1 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has described para 1.4 of assessee written submission that complete regular books of accounts, bill, vouchers and day to day stock register having

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 of the Act and taxable @ 60% under the provision of Section 115BE of the Act. It is also noted from the order of the ld. CIT(A) at para 4.1 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has described para 1.4 of assessee written submission that complete regular books of accounts, bill, vouchers and day to day stock register having

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

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

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)

68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the income of the assessee. Also expenses claimed related to the receipt from DRAIPL are not explained therefore 10% of the proportionate expenses that is 2,65,36,577 is disallowed under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as per the discussion

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)

68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the income of the assessee. Also expenses claimed related to the receipt from DRAIPL are not explained therefore 10% of the proportionate expenses that is 2,65,36,577 is disallowed under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as per the discussion

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

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act and taxable @ 60% under the provision of Section 115BE of the Act. It is also noted from the order of the ld. CIT(A) at para 4.1 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has described para 1.4 of assessee written submission that complete regular books of accounts, bill, vouchers and day to day stock register having

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account

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)

216 ITR 9, the Rajasthan High Court observed that in order to determine whether any addition is to be made under section 68

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

68 of the I.T. Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013, AO ought to have enquired 10 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur about the source of the amounts so credited / invested along with documentary evidence, which AO failed to do. 5. In the year under reference there is large

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

68 of the I.T. Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013, AO ought to have enquired 10 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur about the source of the amounts so credited / invested along with documentary evidence, which AO failed to do. 5. In the year under reference there is large

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 68 treating the 14 squared up loans as unexplained. It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer conducted inquiries at his own level by issuing notices u/s 133(6) to the all the 24 creditors. The Learned Assessing Officer got complete information in respect of ten creditors and in the remaining 14 cases, the information furnished was allegedly

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 of the Act is amended by the Finance Act, 2012 and the requirement to prove the source of the source is not applicable in the year under consideration as the assessment year is concerned in 2009-10. In the light of this facts of the case and the assessee based on law prevent in the year under

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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI CHANDRA SURANA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Auditor. Any Stock Register Whatsoever Was Not Furnished During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings To Verify The Quantitative Sale Made During The Year Whether The Item Shown By The Assessee As Sold Was Actually In Stock Of The Assessee Or Not & Quantity & Value Of The Sale Shown Remains Unverified. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Ignoring The Vital Fact.

section 68 of the Act and consequently the aforesaid addition is directed to be deleted. The Ground of Appeal no. 2 & 4 are treated as allowed.’’ During the course of hearing, the ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and 2.3 prayed that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2