SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

section 68 because the cash deposits becomes self-explanatory and such amounts were received by the assessee from the customers against which the delivery of the vehicle was made to the customers. The question of sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,98,000 would not arise. We, therefore, hold that no addition was required to be made in respect

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act and taxable @ 60% under the provision of Section 115BE of the Act. It is also noted from the order of the ld. CIT(A) at para 4.1 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has described para 1.4 of assessee written submission that complete regular books of accounts, bill, vouchers and day to day stock register having

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

68 read with section 115BBE, if the names and addresses of the buyers are not mentioned in the cash memo. d. A professional will have also to prove the nature and source of his receipts in a definite manner by maintaining the record on the basis of some norms. Thus considering the facts of the case I find that

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess) without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. 2. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 as all the circumstantial evidence found in the course of search conducted by the department proves that the money so received is an advance against the sale of agricultural land. The benefit of doubt, thus, goes in favour of the assessee so far as regard the nature of receipt is concerned as section 292C cast an obligation upon

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 as all the circumstantial evidence found in the course of search conducted by the department proves that the money so received is an advance against the sale of agricultural land. The benefit of doubt, thus, goes in favour of the assessee so far as regard the nature of receipt is concerned as section 292C cast an obligation upon

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 as all the circumstantial evidence found in the course of search conducted by the department proves that the money so received is an advance against the sale of agricultural land. The benefit of doubt, thus, goes in favour of the assessee so far as regard the nature of receipt is concerned as section 292C cast an obligation upon

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 as all the circumstantial evidence found in the course of search conducted by the department proves that the money so received is an advance against the sale of agricultural land. The benefit of doubt, thus, goes in favour of the assessee so far as regard the nature of receipt is concerned as section 292C cast an obligation upon

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 the 28 Geeta Devi Agarwal vs. ITO Hon,ble Supreme Court held in the case of Baladin

GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

section 68 the 28 Geeta Devi Agarwal vs. ITO Hon,ble Supreme Court held in the case of Baladin

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)

28) From the above, by reading all the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 as also the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Central Government framing scheme for "E- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment under sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that

RADHAKISHAN 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)

28) From the above, by reading all the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 as also the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Central Government framing scheme for "E- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment under sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that

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)

28 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT D. Once an assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness, then it is for the AO to conduct a further enquiry and call for more details before invoking Section 68

SHRI HARI NARAIN GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

28-07-2017 disclosing total income of Rs. 41,78,390/- which included the surrendered income of Rs. 22,19,590/- as “current year’s business income offered to tax’ and paid tax and interest at normal rate of tax for an individual. The said return was revised on 27-08-2018 only to correct an entry of data

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

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

68 and addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- by\nalleging that assesse had paid commission @ 5% rate for arranging such\naccommodating entry.\nAggrieved of the addition so made by Id.AO, assessee has preferred appeal\nbefore Id. CIT(A), wherein Id. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in casual\nmanner without considering the submission made, evidence adduced before him\nand

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

section 68 was justified - Whether Special Leave\nPetition against said impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2]\"\n[2024] 159 taxmann.com 28

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

section 68 was justified - Whether Special Leave\nPetition against said impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2]\"\n[2024] 159 taxmann.com 28