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

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

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

239,611 36% 24.88% 1.78% The addition under section 68 on account of cash deposits could not be made simply on the reason that during the demonetization period, cash deposits vis-à-vis cash sales ratio was higher. If customers during the period of demonetization purchased jewellery in cash which has been duly recorded in the books of account

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act while the provisions of 68 as such are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts because the sale transaction are already part of the income which is already credited in Profit & Loss Account, therefore there is no occasion to again consider the same as income of the appellant

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68,920/- made by ld.AO on account of unrecorded sales computed on the basis of loose papers found, and thus addition was restricted to Rs.26,031/-. A.Y. 2016-17: - GP rate of 9.06% was applied as against 7.93% declared by assessee. Accordingly, Trading Addition was restricted to Rs.8,12,514/-. - Addition of Rs.2,72,61,475/- made by ld.AO

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68,920/- made by ld.AO on account of unrecorded sales computed on the basis of loose papers found, and thus addition was restricted to Rs.26,031/-. A.Y. 2016-17: - GP rate of 9.06% was applied as against 7.93% declared by assessee. Accordingly, Trading Addition was restricted to Rs.8,12,514/-. - Addition of Rs.2,72,61,475/- made by ld.AO

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68,920/- made by ld.AO on account of unrecorded sales computed on the basis of loose papers found, and thus addition was restricted to Rs.26,031/-. A.Y. 2016-17: - GP rate of 9.06% was applied as against 7.93% declared by assessee. Accordingly, Trading Addition was restricted to Rs.8,12,514/-. - Addition of Rs.2,72,61,475/- made by ld.AO

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68,920/- made by ld.AO on account of unrecorded sales computed on the basis of loose papers found, and thus addition was restricted to Rs.26,031/-. A.Y. 2016-17: - GP rate of 9.06% was applied as against 7.93% declared by assessee. Accordingly, Trading Addition was restricted to Rs.8,12,514/-. - Addition of Rs.2,72,61,475/- made by ld.AO

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68,920/- made by ld.AO on account of unrecorded sales computed on the basis of loose papers found, and thus addition was restricted to Rs.26,031/-. A.Y. 2016-17: - GP rate of 9.06% was applied as against 7.93% declared by assessee. Accordingly, Trading Addition was restricted to Rs.8,12,514/-. - Addition of Rs.2,72,61,475/- made by ld.AO

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68,920/- made by ld.AO on account of unrecorded sales computed on the basis of loose papers found, and thus addition was restricted to Rs.26,031/-. A.Y. 2016-17: - GP rate of 9.06% was applied as against 7.93% declared by assessee. Accordingly, Trading Addition was restricted to Rs.8,12,514/-. - Addition of Rs.2,72,61,475/- made by ld.AO

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 145(3) then only Fair Income may be estimated which should be based on past results if available, in this matter assesse has a long past history which are undisputable therefore in view of past history estimated profit should be calculated by applying a suitable Net Profit Ratio. Many landmark judgements are supporting this contention as follows

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)

68 of the Act and accordingly an addition of Rs. 7,46,04,862/- was made to the returned income of the assessee. 4.6 During the course of survey proceeding at business premises of M/s. Garg Jeweller at shop 222, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Physical verification of stock was taken on 29-07-2016 by registered valuer and the stock

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)

68 of the Act and accordingly an addition of Rs. 7,46,04,862/- was made to the returned income of the assessee. 4.6 During the course of survey proceeding at business premises of M/s. Garg Jeweller at shop 222, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Physical verification of stock was taken on 29-07-2016 by registered valuer and the stock

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

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)

68 of the Act. The ld. AO also added a sum of Rs. 3,25,010/- being the commission of 2.5% commission for obtaining this accommodation entry. 12. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Apropos to the grounds raised the relevant finding

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 are fulfilled by the appellant and no addition can be made in its case. 5 DCIT vs. Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. However, the assessing officer did not found the submission made by the appellant acceptable. The AO has noted that the investors do not have any substantial business. There is either no profit or very meager profit

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 68. All the aforesaid papers and documents stood submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer under letter dated 07/12/2020 and 15/2/2021. Copies of these letters are available on the additional Paper Book Page No. 16-18being submitted with this submission. It is further submitted that in the assessment order, the Learned Assessing Officer has mentioned regarding the reply

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. (ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 721TR194 (SC) (Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 225-228) held that "It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from a source, which has already

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR NOWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1979-80 - In relevant period assessee had tendered notes of Rs. 1000 denomination valuing Rs. 2 lakhs for encashment - There was no dispute about source of money nor about fact that there was sufficient balance on date of deposit - Assessing Officer, however, made additions of part