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 of ITax Act can be made only he the explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory in the opinion of “Assessing Officer”. The Assessing Officer has been defined u/s 2(7A) of Income Tax act as under:- “(7A) Assessing Officer" means the Assistant Commissioner 31[or Deputy Commissioner] 32

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)

Section 68 of the Act has held that the opinion of the assessing officer for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessees as not satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of material and other attending circumstances available on record. The court further held that the opinion of the assessing officer is required to be formed

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)

section 68 are not applicable in this case because there are proper entries of sale, SBNs/cash received against sale of Gold Ornaments and Jewellery and cash balance etc. in the regular books of account of the assessee. 8. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the cash/SBNs deposited by the appellant

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

32. The assessing officer has stated that merely the income disclosed is agricultural income he has considered though the offered in return of income as bogus income and charged as income from other source. Whereas the CIT(A) while considering this issue has observed as under : “para 14........Since there is no denial of earning of income but since

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

32. The assessing officer has stated that merely the income disclosed is agricultural income he has considered though the offered in return of income as bogus income and charged as income from other source. Whereas the CIT(A) while considering this issue has observed as under : “para 14........Since there is no denial of earning of income but since

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

32. The assessing officer has stated that merely the income disclosed is agricultural income he has considered though the offered in return of income as bogus income and charged as income from other source. Whereas the CIT(A) while considering this issue has observed as under : “para 14........Since there is no denial of earning of income but since

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

32. The assessing officer has stated that merely the income disclosed is agricultural income he has considered though the offered in return of income as bogus income and charged as income from other source. Whereas the CIT(A) while considering this issue has observed as under : “para 14........Since there is no denial of earning of income but since

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)

68 does not require that the amount is to be owned by the Assessee. It only deals with any amount shown in the books of accounts of the assessee whereas Section 69A deals with money, etc., owned by the assessee and found in his possession. – d) Riveria Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITA No. 250/Mum/2013

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 /

68 does not require that the amount is to be owned by the Assessee. It only deals with any amount shown in the books of accounts of the assessee whereas Section 69A deals with money, etc., owned by the assessee and found in his possession. – d) Riveria Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITA No. 250/Mum/2013

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

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)

32 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. same set of particulars. Therefore, only the sales made and utilized for depositing the demonetized currency cannot be doubted for this reason. Section 69A was not applied by AO, therefore, the CIT(A) cannot apply it even on alternative basis. It is relevant to mention here that as per section

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

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

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 and added it to income of assessee – On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition – On revenue’s appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs. 19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of ‘D’ Ltd. which were converted into drafts and in this manner ‘D’ Ltd. subscribed to share capital of assessee company

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

68 has no application.\nRohini Builders, Nimbus (India) Ltd., and Shankar Industries deal with\ndifferent factual scenarios concerning the scope of proof under Section\n68 of the Act, unexplained share capital, or incomplete evidence of\ncreditors. None of them directly address the specific fact situation of\nrepayment within the same year, making them distinguishable from the\npresent controversy.\nITA

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

68 has no application.\nRohini Builders, Nimbus (India) Ltd., and Shankar Industries deal with\ndifferent factual scenarios concerning the scope of proof under Section\n68 of the Act, unexplained share capital, or incomplete evidence of\ncreditors. None of them directly address the specific fact situation of\nrepayment within the same year, making them distinguishable from the\npresent controversy.\nITA

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

68 has no application.\n\nRohini Builders, Nimbus (India) Ltd., and Shankar Industries deal with\ndifferent factual scenarios concerning the scope of proof under Section\n68 of the Act, unexplained share capital, or incomplete evidence of\ncreditors. None of them directly address the specific fact situation of\nrepayment within the same year, making them distinguishable from the\npresent controversy

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

32,000/- under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the basis

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 32, shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing total income.. Therefore, since, the case at hand is of the assessment year, 2017-18 and during that year no set off of loss (including unabsorbed depreciation) was allowed against income u/s. 68