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)

section 68 are not applicable. A. It is submitted that during the course of assessment proceeding the assessee found that some mistakes have taken place by the counsel of the assessee in the income disclosed in the return of income originally filed on 05.08.2017. Therefore the assessee voluntarily and suo moto submitted revised computation/return of income after depositing

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)

section 68 of the Act. While making the addition ld. AO relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 32 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-VI Vs. T. S. Kishan & Co. Ltd., [2014] 50 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi). This decision deals with the share capital credit

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

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)

260 Taxman 326 (Karnataka) [20-11- 2018] In the present case also, the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of those liabilities by citing credible evidence. Simply the liabilities being reflected against certain names in his books of account would not vouch the genuineness of such liabilities. The language in the section 68

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)

260 Taxman 326 (Karnataka) [20-11- 2018] In the present case also, the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of those liabilities by citing credible evidence. Simply the liabilities being reflected against certain names in his books of account would not vouch the genuineness of such liabilities. The language in the section 68

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

68 of the I.T.Act and taxed @ 60% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T.Act.” Moreover, it is seen from the seized records that, alleged unaccounted purchases are also recorded therein and the ld. AO has himself admitted the same. It is further submitted that the seized records itself provides the link to alleged unaccounted sales and unaccounted

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

68 of the I.T.Act and taxed @ 60% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T.Act.” Moreover, it is seen from the seized records that, alleged unaccounted purchases are also recorded therein and the ld. AO has himself admitted the same. It is further submitted that the seized records itself provides the link to alleged unaccounted sales and unaccounted

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

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

260/-) in the return of income filed under section 44AD of the income Tax Act 1961. It is submitted that Gross receipt of Rs, 34,90,750/- disclosed by the assessee is much higher than the peak amount of Rs 24,85,200/- calculated in the chart attached herewith. 27 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 10. To support the contention

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

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

68 of the Act and burden of proving CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR that apparent is not real. Heavy burden is 540 (SC) required to be discharged by department to prove that apparent is not real. It is trite law that burden of proving that apparent (capital gain claim) is not real (bogus) is on the person

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

section 115BBE of the Act. 4.1. Finding of ld.AO: - The findings and observations of ld. AO are at page 2 to 23 of the assessment order. In view of the observations and findings the ld. AO alleged that the sales made, amount realized from debtors and advances received from customers, which was utilized to deposit in bank account

ACIT, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE vs. BALVIR SINGH TOMAR, ADARSH NAGAR

section 68 of the Act.\nLd. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer asked the\nassessee as to why higher cash balance was maintained as on 31.03.2016\nand that for an amount of Rs. 2,53,63,444/- the assessee had not given\nany justified reason.\nThe Id. AO noted that the merely because the assessee had declared\nhigher

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

260 A (7) of the Act as also Section 103 and Order 41 Rule 33 CPC to explain the powers of this Court. Further to explain the powers of the Court, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in C.C.A.P. Limited Versus Commissioner of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

68. The court ruled that without\nconcrete evidence to establish the identities of the creditors, any addition\nto the income of the assessee based on unexplained cash credits is\n\n54\nITA Nos.480/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Karnani Solvex Private Ltd.\n\nunwarranted.\n\n10.5 Moreover, in the Supreme Court decision of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P)\nLtd

GIRDHARI LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

Section 115BBE being substantive provision can never be retrospective in nature and become effective only after getting assent from President of India i.e. on dt. 15.12.2016 and there can not be two rate of tax in one year, thus it is made effective w.e.f. 01.04.2017 only. (copy of order enclosed) PRAYER 1. It is humbly requested to delete addition

SHRI NITIN RAJ JAIN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68 of the Act. Appellant prays that the without prejudice to grounds of appeal No. 1 to 3 telescoping set off deserves to be allowed. 5. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon the ground of this appeal at the time or before the actual hearing of the case.” 3 Shri Nitin Raj Jain, Jaipur