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)

1,63,20,000/- in its bank account and the assessee could not explain the source of part of the cash deposits in the bank account, therefore, it establishes that the assessee violates the provisions of section 110 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. In view of the above discussed facts as well as provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

section 11(1)(d) the Courts have sought to clarify that a specific direction can be gathered from how the recipient has accounted for the contribution. 19. in the case of an educational institution which collected fees on account of building fund and treated as corpus, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Bharatiya Samaknb Vidyapith Trust

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

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, 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, 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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

254 of the Act to decide only the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law and both the assessee as well as the Department have right to raise additional ground appeal and file

M/S. EDILA BUSINESS WORLD PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

68 of the Act in the form of |unsecured loan and partner’s |capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant to Previous Year 2009-10 is assessed at Rs. 70,02,98,459/- u/s 153A read

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. EDILA BUSINESS WORLD PVT. LTD., KOTA

68 of the Act in the form of |unsecured loan and partner’s |capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant to Previous Year 2009-10 is assessed at Rs. 70,02,98,459/- u/s 153A read

M/S. EDILA BUSINESS WORLD PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

68 of the Act in the form of |unsecured loan and partner’s |capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant to Previous Year 2009-10 is assessed at Rs. 70,02,98,459/- u/s 153A read

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. JAMMU METALLIC OXIDES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA

68 of the Act in the form of |unsecured loan and partner’s |capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- ITA Nos. 1055, 1208, 1191/JP/2018 & CO 49/JP/2018 28 M/s Jammu Metallic Oxides Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. JAMMU METALLIC OXIDES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA

68 of the Act in the form of |unsecured loan and partner’s |capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- ITA Nos. 1055, 1208, 1191/JP/2018 & CO 49/JP/2018 28 M/s Jammu Metallic Oxides Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant

M/S. JAMMU METALLIC OXIDES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

68 of the Act in the form of |unsecured loan and partner’s |capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- ITA Nos. 1055, 1208, 1191/JP/2018 & CO 49/JP/2018 28 M/s Jammu Metallic Oxides Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED., KOTA

68 of the Act in the form of |unsecured loan and partner’s |capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- ITA Nos. 1054, 1190 & 1209/JP/2018 & CO 47/JP/2018 28 M/s Tirupati Balaji Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant

M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

68 of the Act in the form of |unsecured loan and partner’s |capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- ITA Nos. 1054, 1190 & 1209/JP/2018 & CO 47/JP/2018 28 M/s Tirupati Balaji Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED., KOTA

68 of the Act in the form of |unsecured loan and partner’s |capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- ITA Nos. 1054, 1190 & 1209/JP/2018 & CO 47/JP/2018 28 M/s Tirupati Balaji Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant

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

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

1 (SC)[08-02-1963] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt as under:-\n\"It seems to us that the answer to this question must be in the affirmative\nand that is how it was answered by the High Court. It is well established\nthat the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found