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 251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68

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 251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68

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)

251 and 252 of the Act have also worded keeping the same spirit, as also the Rule 46A. Section 250(4) 5 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT empowers the learned CIT(A) to make further inquiries on its own or to direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and to report to him. The embargo

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)

251 (1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the CIT (A) shall have the power “in an appeal against an order of assessment he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annual the assessment”. As regard applicability of section 69A of I. Tax Act by CIT(A) we submit that the ld AO has made addition u/s 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. As the revenue was not satisfied with the finding so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal of the assessee, revenue has preferred the present appeal challenging the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on the technical reasons and on merits of the case. In support

VINOD GUPTA,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHUNJHUNU

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

251(1) of the Act in case of assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act. 9. As is available from the assessment order dated 25.05.2023 as per specific information available on Insight portal under High Risk CRIU/VRU information, uploaded by the office of DDIT (Inv.), Unit-6(2), New Delhi, a survey u/s 133A

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68, relies on SC ruling in Apex Labs to reject Assessee's submission that even though the transactions are held illegal by the Revenue only the income can be taxed under the Act which does not differentiate between legal and illegal incomes; Also holds that demonetised currency was received by the Assessee and was wrongfully deposited with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

251 of the Act. Accordingly following the various decisions as relied upon by the assessee as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Narayan Sharma Vs ITO (supra) we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue being beyond the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT(A). 8. On the merits

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

251 of the Act. Accordingly following the various decisions as relied upon by the assessee as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Narayan Sharma Vs ITO (supra) we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue being beyond the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT(A). 8. On the merits

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

251 of the Act. Accordingly following the various decisions as relied upon by the assessee as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Narayan Sharma Vs ITO (supra) we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue being beyond the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT(A). 8. On the merits

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

251 of the Act. Accordingly following the various decisions as relied upon by the assessee as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Narayan Sharma Vs ITO (supra) we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue being beyond the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT(A). 8. On the merits

SH. SANJAY BAIRATHI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

251(1)(a) of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to set aside an issue. Therefore, the direction given by him to the AO to examine the claim and allow if permissible as per law is bad in law and on this ground itself the appeal of the assessee be allowed. Otherwise also, when the loss has arisen

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GORDHANDAS NANDKISHORE JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed with no orders as to

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the large cash deposit of demonetised currency made by the assessee, an individual deriving income from the business of trading in bullion, precious stones, diamond and manufacturing of jewellery in his proprietorship concern, treating it as his undisclosed income. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had not submitted

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act. The bench 41 Alka Khandaka vs. ITO noted that the ld. AO while doubting the purchase of the three parties only one party he confronted a person he said that he was not aware. But the ld. AO has not verified that in this case payment has been by an account payees and in two other

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

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 10. 7.3 The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that there is no incriminating documents or cash trail found during the course of search proceedings and search assessments are completed and there is no contrary finding to the credit appearing in the books of account of the assessee. 7.4 The Revenue has not placed on record

SHREENATH HERITAGE LIQUOR PVT. LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

section 68. In view of this it is submitted that the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer has erroneously confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 4. Favbourable case laws: - The assessee further places reliance on the following decisions of the wherein in similar circumstances share application money has been accepted as genuine and additions

SHRI MERH KSHTRIYA SABHA,AJMER vs. CIT(APPEALS), DELHI

68 of the IT act and hence the facts of the appellant are different, In\nfact, relied upon the decision supports the stand of the Assessing Officer that\nin absence of identity details of donor's, section 115BBC and section 2(24)(iia)\nof the Act are squarely applicable. Also Section 115BBC clearly states that the\namount

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition