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

68 but it should have been made u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 then the jurisdiction of CIT (A) in limited to deciding the matter whether the addition u/s 69A is correct or not. In the appellate proceeding the addition cannot be confirmed by applying all together different section by invoking a section for which satisfaction

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 to 28\nare set out hereunder: -\nContentions of NFAC\nRebuttal\nWeight and number

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, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. In the circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.16,52,000/- made by ld. AO without appreciating the details and evidences filed, deserves to be deleted

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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 comes into play immediately when an entry relating to a sum is found to have been credited in the books kept by the assessee. Meaning thereby, that the condition precedent to apply this section is the existence of books and the recording of a sum, as cash credit therein - ITO v. Rajendra Kumar Taparia [2008] 22 SOT 23

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 comes into play immediately when an entry relating to a sum is found to have been credited in the books kept by the assessee. Meaning thereby, that the condition precedent to apply this section is the existence of books and the recording of a sum, as cash credit therein - ITO v. Rajendra Kumar Taparia [2008] 22 SOT 23

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 comes into play immediately when an entry relating to a sum is found to have been credited in the books kept by the assessee. Meaning thereby, that the condition precedent to apply this section is the existence of books and the recording of a sum, as cash credit therein - ITO v. Rajendra Kumar Taparia [2008] 22 SOT 23

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 comes into play immediately when an entry relating to a sum is found to have been credited in the books kept by the assessee. Meaning thereby, that the condition precedent to apply this section is the existence of books and the recording of a sum, as cash credit therein - ITO v. Rajendra Kumar Taparia [2008] 22 SOT 23

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

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 /

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

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 cannot be applied in relation to the sales receipt shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. It is because the sales receipt has already been shown in the books of accounts as income at the time of sale only.” • Dewas Soya Ltd, Ujjain vs Department Of Income Tax (ITA Nos. 426 to 428/Ind/2012) dated 23

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 cannot be applied in relation to the sales receipt shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. It is because the sales receipt has already been shown in the books of accounts as income at the time of sale only.” • Dewas Soya Ltd, Ujjain vs Department Of Income Tax (ITA Nos. 426 to 428/Ind/2012) dated 23

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 I.T. Act. N Because the Appellant had placed on record confirmations of parties with PAN No. (ii) copy of ledger account from the books (iii) copy of bank statements all of which aided the assessee in discharging his initial burden of proof that the persons from whom the amounts were received had advanced these amounts

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.

68, read with Section 115BBE, by the ld. AO, to the amount of Rs. 37,95,560 accounted for sales by the assessee, is illegal and deserves to be quashed.” 10. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence and records: 23

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 on account of share application money – Held, yes. 5. 205 ITR 98 (Delhi ) CIT Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. If the shares holders are identified and it established that they have invested money in the purchases of shares, then the amount received by the company would be regarded as a capital receipt

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 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)

section 68 of the Act on account of sundry creditors of Rs. 2,23,24,871/- by treating the same