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)

282 (Calcutta) (PB 161-164): The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held as under: 3.The short question involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Siliguri CIT(A), after having fully agreed with the assessing officer for certain verifications. Section 251 of the Act deals with the powers of the Commissioner of Appeals. Sub-Section

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

section 68 and added it\nto income of assessee On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition\nOn revenue's appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs.\n19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of 'D' Ltd. which were converted\ninto drafts and in this manner 'D' Ltd. subscribed to share application of assessee\ncompany

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

282 (SC) wherein it is held that "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in S. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial

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

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

68, 69 & 69A of the Act. As such, the assessee was able to justify the source of income surrendered during survey operation. Therefore we are of the view that the same cannot be treated as deemed income. Once, the income goes out of the preview of the deeming provision, the provision of section 115BBE of the Act cannot

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

68 of the I.T. Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013, AO ought to have enquired 10 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur about the source of the amounts so credited / invested along with documentary evidence, which AO failed to do. 5. In the year under reference there is large

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

68 of the I.T. Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013, AO ought to have enquired 10 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur about the source of the amounts so credited / invested along with documentary evidence, which AO failed to do. 5. In the year under reference there is large

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

282-408)\n7.\nCopy of Assessment order for AY 2013-14 passed u/s 143(3) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 wherein after verification of the books of\naccounts and other relevant bills and vouchers, the trading results\ndeclared were accepted (APB 58-59)\n8.\nCopy of Bank Statements highlighting transactions with M/s Mamta\nTrading Company

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

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

Section 115BBE of the Act\nfor the addition already made u/s 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

GAYATRI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68, read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) - Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - During relevant years, assessee received certain amount as gifts from his father and sister who were non-residents in India - Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a view that assessee had duly proved identity, source and creditworthiness

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

282 CTR 75\n(Guj.)(HC) Hon'ble Gujarat High court held that:-\n“S. 147 : Reassessment – Within four years – The basis of formation of belief by the AO\nthat income liable to tax has escaped assessment must form part of reasons recorded by\nhim – AO could not initiate reassessment proceedings merely on the basis of information\nsupplied by DGIT

STAR COTSPIN LIMITED,GANGRAR CHITTORGARH vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act whereas Rs. 50 lakh loan was genuine, supported by PAN, bank proof, and repayment, no contrary evidence provided. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 75,000/- under section 69A of the Act which is presumptive, based solely on third-party statements. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

282 (Del.), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under :- "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only

ANUJ KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68 to share application monies, and the position was pithily summed up as follows at pages 282 of 299 ITR: ‘’In this

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

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68 has already been met with in the assessment proceeding and 36 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur the issue is raised is without considering the facts already on record submitted vide reply dated 26.12.2019 to the AO. The ld. PCIT in her SCN in point no. v and vi raised those issues which were

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

68,47,908\n64,83,44,075\nGP/GP Rate Rs.\n67271908/12.77%\n155602459/24.00\nNP/NP rate Rs.\n12672574/2.41%\n115008372/17.74\n6. The details filed by the assessee and books of accounts have been examined\nparticularly to ascertain as to whether there has been any inter-unit adjustment of\nexpenses to adjust profits with a view to maximize the deduction under section 10AA