SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

271D has been initiated whereas according to assessee it is a receipt of cash advance against property. Therefore, in either of situation no addition u/s 68 can be made. In view of above, order of Ld. CIT(A) be upheld by dismissing the ground of department. 16. In addition to the written submission filed the Ld. AR has made further

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

271D has been initiated whereas according to assessee it is a receipt of cash advance against property. Therefore, in either of situation no addition u/s 68 can be made. In view of above, order of Ld. CIT(A) be upheld by dismissing the ground of department. 16. In addition to the written submission filed the Ld. AR has made further

SHRI RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) of section 253, after the expiration of the period of— (i)two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which the action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or (ii)six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Deputy Commissioner

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

68[or section 44BB orsection 44BBB], as the case may be, and the assessee has claimed his income to be lower than the profits or gains so deemed to be the profits and gains of his business, as the case may be, during such 69 [previous year,] ] The following clause (iv) shall be inserted after clause

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

68 has been made. Kindly refer Jagdish Sharan Agarwal vs. Addl. CIT (Supra). 7.2 In Omec Engineering V/s CIT (2007) 2 DTR 312(Jarkhand) it has been held that there being no finding of AO, CIT(A) or Tribunal that the transactions in violation of S. 269SS were not genuine, assessee;s return having been accepted u/s 143(3) after

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

2) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has\nerred in holding that the relevant date for determining the limitation period for\nimposing penalty u/s 271D is the date when the assessment order was passed\nby the A.O and not the date when show cause notice was issued by the\nJCIT/AddI. CIT & ignoring

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

2) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has\nerred in holding that the relevant date for determining the limitation period for\nimposing penalty u/s 271D is the date when the assessment order was passed\nby the A.O and not the date when show cause notice was issued by the\nJCIT/AddI. CIT & ignoring

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

2) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has\nerred in holding that the relevant date for determining the limitation period for\nimposing penalty u/s 271D is the date when the assessment order was passed\nby the A.O and not the date when show cause notice was issued by the\nJCIT/AddI. CIT & ignoring

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

2) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has\nerred in holding that the relevant date for determining the limitation period for\nimposing penalty u/s 271D is the date when the assessment order was passed\nby the A.O and not the date when show cause notice was issued by the\nJCIT/Addl. CIT & ignoring

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)

2. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that section 269SS provides that no person shall take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit exceeding the specified amount otherwise than by account payee cheque/bank draft. The explanation to section 269SS provides that loan or deposit means loan or deposit of money. Therefore section 269SS

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

2) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has\nerred in holding that the relevant date for determining the limitation period for\nimposing penalty u/s 271D is the date when the assessment order was passed\nby the A.O and not the date when show cause notice was issued by the\nJCIT/AddI. CIT & ignoring

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed

271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, no penalty is leviable upon the 5 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar assessee. Nevertheless, the assessee has filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Jaipur as per copy of form no. 35 placed on record wherein the alleged acceptance of loan or deposit of Rs. 2

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68,70,840 5,60,04,220 3,91,33,381 31-85 2017-18 29.04.2022 2,87,89,300

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68,70,840 5,60,04,220 3,91,33,381 31-85 2017-18 29.04.2022 2,87,89,300

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition