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)

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

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

68,81,546/- and shown long term capital gain of Rs.5,39,67,684/- and claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs.5,39,67,384/-. The AO noted that the sale of agricultural lands at Muhana, Sanganer have been made on 06/02/2013 and further agricultural lands purchased on 28/08/2014 at Mauja Shiekpur, Fatehabad. Thus, it was noted by the AO that

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

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

2,68,00,000/- obtained from Arjit Securities Pvt. Ltd of Rs. 81\nLacs. Seatrans Dan Shiroma Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 90 Lacs, Parmatma\nTours and Travels Pvt. Ltd of Rs. 72 Lacs and Yomroosh\nInvestment Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 25 Lacs are bogus share application\nmoney and added as per provision of section 68

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)

2, The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the AD in treating the receipts of Rs. 4,11,00,000, declared as business income, as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently taxing the same under section 1158BE The Learned CIT(A) failed

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

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

2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai -\nTrib.) as under:-\n\"3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to\ndischarge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to\nsatisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts.\nThe burden has to be discharged with positive material

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 dba Trib.) as under:- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon, First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanic

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

2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after referred to as Act ] was issued on 14.07.2017. The assessee filed the reply online to the notices issued to the assessee from time to time and submitted necessary details and explanations online and the assessment of the assessee company was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 20.12.2018 accepting

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

2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after referred to as Act ] was issued on 14.07.2017. The assessee filed the reply online to the notices issued to the assessee from time to time and submitted necessary details and explanations online and the assessment of the assessee company was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 20.12.2018 accepting

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.

2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.) as under:- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanie

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.

2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.) as under:- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanie

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.

2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.) as under:- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanie

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.

2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.) as under:- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanie

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.

2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.) as under:- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanie

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2), Thane (2016) 73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was\nheld as under:\n\"I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has\nbeen made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank\naccount as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68

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

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib) as under- "3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanic

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee society had filed an online application under section 12AA dated 12.01.2019 in Form No.10A seeking registration under section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961. However, the said Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhilwara. application of the assessee rejected by the ld. CIT (Exemption) vide order dated

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

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

68-71), in response to which the assessee filed a detailed\nrepliesdt. 21.03.2022& 10.06.2024 (PB 72-74& 79-82 respectively).Unfortunately, however, the\nCIT(E) without consider the same, again rejected the application for registration u/s 12AAvide\nimpugned order on dt. 27.06.2024, on various new grounds (which were not raised during the 1st\nround) i.e (a) Non-genuineness of activities