DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

276/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and provisions of section 115BBE squarely applicable in this case

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

276/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and provisions of section 115BBE squarely applicable in this case

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

276/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and provisions of section 115BBE squarely applicable in this case

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

276/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and provisions of section 115BBE squarely applicable in this case

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

276/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and provisions of section 115BBE squarely applicable in this case

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

276/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and provisions of section 115BBE squarely applicable in this case

SH. TAIYAB KHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

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

68 nor that of section 69A become applicable as both the provisions come into play only if cash found is unexplained. 1.2. That, Id.CIT(A) has further erred in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act in respect of enhancement made to income u/s 68/69A. 1.3. That, Id. CIT(A) further erred in enhancing assessment

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.

276 ITR 38 (Allahabad)/[2006] 202 CTR 515 (Allahabad)[19-01- 2005] it is held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as under:- "During the assessment year in question certain amount of cash credits standing in the names of various persons were added in the income of the applicant by invoking the provision of section 68

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.

276 ITR 38 (Allahabad)/[2006] 202 CTR 515 (Allahabad)[19-01- 2005] it is held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as under:- "During the assessment year in question certain amount of cash credits standing in the names of various persons were added in the income of the applicant by invoking the provision of section 68

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.

276 ITR 38 (Allahabad)/[2006] 202 CTR 515 (Allahabad)[19-01- 2005] it is held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as under:- "During the assessment year in question certain amount of cash credits standing in the names of various persons were added in the income of the applicant by invoking the provision of section 68

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.

276 ITR 38 (Allahabad)/[2006] 202 CTR 515 (Allahabad)[19-01- 2005] it is held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as under:- "During the assessment year in question certain amount of cash credits standing in the names of various persons were added in the income of the applicant by invoking the provision of section 68

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.

276 ITR 38 (Allahabad)/[2006] 202 CTR 515 (Allahabad)[19-01- 2005] it is held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as under:- "During the assessment year in question certain amount of cash credits standing in the names of various persons were added in the income of the applicant by invoking the provision of section 68

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

276 (Trib- Indore) has held that "Substantive law shall be understood to be applicable prospectively unless made specifically retrospective. Thus, it is settled position of law that provision of section 115BBE of the Act is clearly not applicable in case of business income which is taxed under section 28 to 44 of the Income Tax Act. The assessing

MUKESH SONI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

276/- out of this cash sale from 01.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 at Rs. 29,65,000/- before this period cash sale is Nil. Which is abnormal and unreasonable, the sales from 01.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 has increased so abnormally in comparison to rest of the period of F.Y 2016-17. It all shows manipulation in accounts for converting the undisclosed income

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

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

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

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

Section 68 of the I.T. Act provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee maintained for any previous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

276/- generated by assessee at special tax rate under section 115BBE of the Act as detailed above based upon independent satisfaction of the assessing officer, who will duly consider the replies of the taxpayer.\n10. Assessee challenges the finding so recorded by the Id. PCIT by way of the present appeal on the grounds as stated herein above. Apropos