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 of the Act if the same are found to be correct, after due verification and as per law. Relevant extracts of the decision are as under: “6.14 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the AO is directed to verify the claim of appellant and the documents furnished by the appellant as mentioned above in para

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68.\nIdentification of buyers\nSo far as identification of buyers are concerned, assessee has furnished full detail\nof names and addresses along with their PIN code numbers. (Copy is placed here\nalso) Since, assessee discharged his onus lay upon him by filing of the detail, AO\nobservation that the details are incomplete and invoices are bogus

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

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)

250 and income tax has been deposited on such income. Hence, Section 68 per se cannot be invoked in this case.Provisions of Section 68 can only be invoked in cases where an assessee is unable to explain the source of a particular receipt to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. These provisions have no application in a case

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 6,45,810.00 Total 15,31,310.00 Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned AO the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the course of pendency of appeal before the learned CIT(A) the asseseee had requested the learned AO, ITO ward 1 (4), Jaipur vide letter dated 20.01.2020 to furnish copy of order

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 6,45,810.00 Total 15,31,310.00 Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned AO the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the course of pendency of appeal before the learned CIT(A) the asseseee had requested the learned AO, ITO ward 1 (4), Jaipur vide letter dated 20.01.2020 to furnish copy of order

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

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)

250 dated 06.02.2025 by treating the fresh unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 2,01,92,401/- taken by the appellant during the financial year 2016-17 under consideration as un-explained by upholding invoking the provisions of section 68 and determining the tax demand under section 115BBE of the Act by the Ld. Assessing Officer without considering

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)

6,00,000/­ as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and confirmed the addition. Section 68 of the Act deals with "unexplained Credit" in the books of the assessee and section 69A of the Act deals with 37 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. "unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article". Both are entirely different. Though

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

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)

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 63,43,891/-on account of short cash in hand. 7 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in making addition

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 63,43,891/-on account of short cash in hand. 7 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in making addition

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

250 dated 15.04.2024 on account of cash deposited in bank by wrongly invoking section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The said order has been passed without considering the documents available on record and without considering the written submissions given by the appellant only on assumption and presumption in an arbitrary manner and thus it is perverse, unsustainable being

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)

6 and Para 5 on Page No. 7 of the order) “...The sale recorded in September and October is purely adjustment and sounds abnormal. And therefore, it is also not justified. 7 Ashish Bhargava, Jaipur. ….there is no any seasonal factor (like Festival etc) is affecting the sales of the assessee every year. The assessee is simply making a story

SH. TAIYAB KHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

6. Copy of Notice dated 16/10/2019 issued under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 61-62 Copy of Reply dated 11.10.2019 issued under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of date 63-65 7. 18/9/2019 Copy of Reply dated 22.10.2019 issued under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of date