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

RIDHIRAJ BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, NCRB, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

254. The surrender income disclosed by the assessee firm is part of the business activities and no other activities are carried out by the assessee firm and also no material or evidence brought on record by the Department and the provisions of section 68

RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V.P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/(2007) 210 CTR 20 (SC)[15-05-2007] has held as under:- "May be the money came by way of bank cheques and paid through the process of banking transaction

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

254 taxmann\n398/165 DTR 97/302 CTR 241 (Delhi) (HC) wherein the court held\nS. 68: Cash credits – Cash withdrawn from Bank was redeposited after seven\nmonths, addition cannot be made as cash credits.\nAllowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that; Cash withdrawn from\nBank was redeposited after seven months, addition cannot be made as cash\ncredits. Explanation

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of Chandra Mohan

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of Chandra Mohan

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of Chandra Mohan

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of Chandra Mohan

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of Chandra Mohan

GOLECHAS JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n10/04/2024

68 of\nthe Income Tax Act as AO didn't rejected the books of accounts nor\nbrought anything contrary on records to show that cash sales is not the\nsource for cash deposits. Keeping the above judgement in view, the same\nshould be held for the case under dispute.\nIt is also noted that the ld. AR of the assessee

SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the\ninvestors (4) thoir creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of\nthe transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established prima\nfacie, the department is required to undertake further exercise.\n8.5 It has been held that merely proving the identity of the investors does\nnot discharge the onus of the assessee, if the capacity

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

254 Cr on 31.03.2016. The assessee company received share capital in the year under reference amounting to Rs. 76.5 Cr ( Rs. 25.50 Cr each from Shri Jayant Joshi, Shri Jalal Joshi and Shri Nayan Joshi ). The share of Rs. 30 Cr were allotted in December, 2014 another 30 Cr. in January, 2015, of Rs. 60 Cr. in March

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

254 Cr on 31.03.2016. The assessee company received share capital in the year under reference amounting to Rs. 76.5 Cr ( Rs. 25.50 Cr each from Shri Jayant Joshi, Shri Jalal Joshi and Shri Nayan Joshi ). The share of Rs. 30 Cr were allotted in December, 2014 another 30 Cr. in January, 2015, of Rs. 60 Cr. in March

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.”

254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that it is not the business of the assessee to find out the source or sources from where the creditor had accumulated the amount which he had advanced in the form of loan to the assessee and Section 68 cannot be read to show that in the case of failure of sub-creditors

PREM LATA PANDYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1471/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2019-20 Prem Lata Pandya बनाम Deputy Commissioner of 302, Raj Mension, D-299, Vs. Income Tax, Tulsi Marg Bani Park, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.:ACXPJ9951A निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Sh. S.L.Poddar, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh

68, 69, 690, 698, 69C and 69D. The same was amended by the 2nd Amendment Act, w.e.f. 01.04.2017, enhancing the rate to 60% Hence there was no new liability created and the rate of tax merely stood enhanced which is applicable to the assessments carried on in that year. The enhanced rate applies from the commencement of the assessment year

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

section 80G of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we dispose off all the grounds through a consolidated order. 5. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee reiterated the arguments as were raised by him before the ld. CIT (Exemption) and also relied on the written submission submitted before us which are reproduced

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E) , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 80G of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, for the sake\nof convenience, we dispose off all the grounds through a consolidated order.\n5. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee reiterated the arguments as were raised\nby him before the ld. CIT (Exemption) and also relied on the written submission\nsubmitted before us which are reproduced

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the\nIncome Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the\ncreditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction\nas well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading\nCo. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file\nnumber of creditor will