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 of the Act. In view of above, it is submitted that the assessment order passed is grossly incorrect, based on false assumption and allegation, and without considering the detailed documents submitted during the assessment proceeding the therefore the additions made be directed to be deleted. In addition, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the considering the material placed

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

68 or 69C is contradictory to the stand taken while accepting the business income. ……. ….. 13. The genuineness of the transactions has been accepted on the basis of documentary evidence and other material gathered, which cannot be re-appreciated under Section 260A

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 145(3), otherwise she could have invoked the same. Thus cold and hot breath cannot blow together. 15. Addition made without bringing any cogent material on record; Simultaneously Ld. AO could not bring any cogent material in support of his allegation that such founded Cash of Rs. 1,78,08,630/- is Unexplained Income, except suspicion for that

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 alleging that cash found during the course of search/seizure is not backed by valid Books of accounts as it has been rejected, but without bringing any cogent material in support of his contention and without bringing corroborative evidence and without considering the materials and explanations available on records in their true perspective and sense, therefore invocation of Section

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)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is not correct. As regards disallowance of an amount of Rs. 12,63,307/-, being 25% of expenses on ad hoc basis, the AO after rejecting books of accounts has relied upon the same set of books for making disallowance out of the expenses claimed, which is not correct

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 68 of the assessee company.” The case of the assessee is also supported with the the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Morani Automatives (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “10. The points as sought to be raised by the appellant-revenue in the present case

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

68 alleging that cash sale is not genuine, but without bringing any cogent material in support of her contention and without bringing corroborative evidence and without considering the materials and explanations available on records in their true perspective and sense, therefore addition is illegal and such addition should be deleted in toto, The Honble Raj. High Court in the case

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 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit\n\n9\nITA Nos.480/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Karnani Solvex Private Ltd.\n\n5 ...Apart from this, the director of the assessee company Sh. Sanjay\nKamani was confronted over this issue during search proceedings vide question\nno. 12 of the statement dated 01.10.2018 recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which\nhas

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share\ntransactions) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessing Officer treated LTCG disclosed\nby assessee on sale of shares as unexplained cash credit on basis that assessee had\nintroduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG - Tribunal held that\nsince assessee had produced all relevant

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- and the action of the assessee violates the provisions of\nsection 269SS/T and therefore, penalty proceedings was initiated by issuing\nnotice u/s.274 r.w.s.271D of the Act on 01.07.2024. Record reveals that\nthis notice was issued by the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral, Jaipur upon a reference made by the Id. ACIT, Central Circle-2,\nvide letter

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- and the action of the assessee violates the provisions of\nsection 269SS/T and therefore, penalty proceedings was initiated by issuing\nnotice u/s.274 r.w.s.271D of the Act on 01.07.2024. Record reveals that\nthis notice was issued by the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral, Jaipur upon a reference made by the Id. ACIT, Central Circle-2,\nvide letter

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- and the action of the assessee violates the provisions of\nsection 269SS/T and therefore, penalty proceedings was initiated by\nissuing notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271D of the Act on 01.07.2024. Record\nreveals that this notice was issued by the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income\nTax, Central, Jaipur upon a reference made by the Id. ACIT, Central Circle-\n2, vide letter

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- and the action of the assessee violates the provisions of\nsection 269SS/T and therefore, penalty proceedings was initiated by issuing\nnotice u/s.274 r.w.s.271D of the Act on 01.07.2024. Record\nreveals that this notice was issued by the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income\nTax, Central, Jaipur upon a reference made by the Id. ACIT, Central Circle-\n2, vide letter

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- and the action of the assessee violates the provisions of\nsection 269SS/T and therefore, penalty proceedings was initiated by issuing\nnotice u/s.274 r.w.s.271D of the Act on 01.07.2024. Record reveals that\nthis notice was issued by the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral, Jaipur upon a reference made by the Id. ACIT, Central Circle-2,\nvide letter

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

68 of the Act. The next case is on a fact where the director of the company obtained cash loan from a financier and deposited the cash in the bank account which is not the facts of the present case. The last case is where the assessee failed to discharge its burden in proving that there was a reasonable cause

BABUDEEN AND PARTY,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of Act was totally deleted whereas the trading addition of Rs.3,03,56,401 was reduced to lump-sum addition of Rs.5,00,000. Against trading addition sustained by Ld. CIT (A), the Department was in second appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur whereas, the Appellant was in cross objection (C.O.) before the Hon'ble ITAT

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs. 2,92,93,288/-represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers

RAJA RAM RAJENDRA BHANDARI &PARTY ,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees above are dismissed with above directions

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbirbal Ram Rajendra Poonia & Party, Party A-51, Hanuman Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur 302 012 Pan No. Aaaab 3118M ...... Appellant Vs.

260A of IT Act. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, vide decision dated 21.08.2017 (with other bunch of liquor cases), restored the case of the appellant as well as of other liquor contractors, back to the Assessing Officer. 10. With reference to the order of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, all the parties will produce all documents before the authority

BIRBAL RAM RAJENDRA POONIA &PARTY,C/O G. MEHTA AND CO. vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees above are dismissed with above directions

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbirbal Ram Rajendra Poonia & Party, Party A-51, Hanuman Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur 302 012 Pan No. Aaaab 3118M ...... Appellant Vs.

260A of IT Act. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, vide decision dated 21.08.2017 (with other bunch of liquor cases), restored the case of the appellant as well as of other liquor contractors, back to the Assessing Officer. 10. With reference to the order of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, all the parties will produce all documents before the authority