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)

68 of the Act. The cash deposits being SBNs in bank accounts of the assessee during demonetization period amounting to Rs. 6,76,59,000 are unexplained and alternatively taxable under section 69A of the Act. At the same time, since the sales are found to be bogus to that extent, Rs. 6,76,59,000 shall be reduced

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 Act. With respect to disallowance of an amount of Rs. 12,63,307/-, being 25% of expenses on ad hoc basis, the CIT(A) held that the AO after rejecting books of accounts relied upon the same set of books for making disallowance out of the expenses claimed which is not correct. The decision

SHRI NARESH JHANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, JAIPUR

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

section 68. Hence on the basis of the entries in such documents / paper addition u/s. 68 cannot be made. The ld. AR for this contention has placed reliance on the following decision in his written submission: ArunaSankhlaVs. DCIT ITA No.484/JP/2016 dt.01.12.2017 (Jaipur) (Trib.) para 7.4 of order held as under: “After considering the rival submissions and the materials available

SHRI NARESH JHANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, JAIPUR

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

section 68. Hence on the basis of the entries in such documents / paper addition u/s. 68 cannot be made. The ld. AR for this contention has placed reliance on the following decision in his written submission: ArunaSankhlaVs. DCIT ITA No.484/JP/2016 dt.01.12.2017 (Jaipur) (Trib.) para 7.4 of order held as under: “After considering the rival submissions and the materials available

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

272 (Bombay) it was held that: "Section 68, read with section 263, of the Income tax Act, 1961 Cash

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

272 (Bombay) it was held that: "Section 68, read with section 263, of the Income tax Act, 1961 Cash

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)

68 are not applicable on the Respondent. 6.3. No incriminating material found during the search proceedings. 6.4. Opportunity of Respondent. cross examination is not provided to 6.5. Addition made solely on the basis of statement of third persons which is not justified. In view of the fact and circumstance of the present case the Assessee respectfully prays before

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,\n69, 69A, 69B, 69C, or 69D if such income is not reflected in the return of income\nfurnished under section 139 of the Act, income tax payable shall be @ 60% on\nincome so referred in the said section.\n19. Change which has been brought about in the provisions relates to income so\nreferred to in the afore

PANNA LAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

section 68. Hence, on the basis of entries in the diary, addition u/s 68 cannot be made. In this connection reliance is placed on the following decisions: Aruna Sankhla Vs. DCIT ITA No.484/JP/2016 dt. 01.12.2017 (Jaipur) (Trib.) In this case Hon'ble ITAT at Para 7.4 of its order held as under: "After considering the rival submissions

DCIT,CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PANNA LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

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

section 68. Hence, on the basis of entries in the diary, addition u/s 68 cannot be made. In this connection reliance is placed on the following decisions: Aruna Sankhla Vs. DCIT ITA No.484/JP/2016 dt. 01.12.2017 (Jaipur) (Trib.) In this case Hon'ble ITAT at Para 7.4 of its order held as under: "After considering the rival submissions

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

68 of the Act,supra.\n10. Thereafter, based on outcome of such enquiries and verification,\nnecessary additions, wherever required, may be made to the total\nincome of the assessee as per law by modifying the assessment order\nu/s 147/144B of the Act dated 15.04.2021. However, the AO is directed\nto ensure that reasonable opportunities of being heard are provided

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 153A of the Act, every case where there was search or requisition, the AO is obliged to issue notice to such person furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year which the search conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance can made only on the basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR

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

section 68 of the Act.  The deletion of this addition by the CIT (A) without any discussion of the issue in his Appeal Order is perverse and bad in law.  The nature of the transaction could not be proved by the assessee.  Rupal Jain vs Commissioner of Income tax (2023) 152 taxmann.com 346 (SC)  MrsRupal Jain vs Commissioner

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

272 & 276, Johari Bazar, Vs. Income Tax, Jaipur-302003. Central Circle-2, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCM 1827 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing 08/09/2022

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

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act would not be attracted on the\npurchases made on credit.”\nPrayer\nIn light of the above rebuttals and settled law, the Appellant prays that:\n1. The disallowance of Rs.9,71,272

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 68 of the Act would not be attracted on the purchases made on credit.” Prayer In light of the above rebuttals and settled law, the Appellant prays that: 1. The disallowance of Rs. 9,71,272