SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2 crore opted for\npresumptive taxation u/s 44AD. Although he was not required to maintain\nregular books of accounts but since he was also registered with RVAT Act\n2003, he maintained cash book, ledger day to day stock register, invoices\nbills etc. Entire payments to suppliers were made through banking channel\nand sales were made to customer for which assessee

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

section 12AA as a charitable entity undertaking educational activity and thus qualify as an eligible entity for receiving contributions from the assessee society. The contribution of Rs 3,86,84,912 is made by the assessee society out of income generated during the year under consideration as apparent from the return of income and computation of income available

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,940.00 the G.P. rate of 8.60% as against the declared G.P rate of 8.52% declared by assessee 2. On account of late deposit of employee 33,914.00 contribution of Provident Fund and ESI under sec. 36(1)(va) Total Additions 8,02,854.00 12. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) estimated the G.P. @ 8.56% as against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,940.00 the G.P. rate of 8.60% as against the declared G.P rate of 8.52% declared by assessee 2. On account of late deposit of employee 33,914.00 contribution of Provident Fund and ESI under sec. 36(1)(va) Total Additions 8,02,854.00 12. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) estimated the G.P. @ 8.56% as against

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

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

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68. [Russian Technology Center (P.) Ltd. 2013 Taxmann.com 400 (Delhi-Trib)] 2.8. Mere inadequacy of an enquiry or insufficiency of material on record can be a ground to invoke powers under Section 263. Under identical set of facts, 22 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur [2021] 214 TTJ (Chd.) 908, jurisdiction under Section

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

32 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT show cause as to why the deemed consideration of Rs. 83,96,410/- received by assessee, over above of the face value of equity shares may not be taxed u/s 56(2)(vii)(C) of the Income Tax act, 1961. 16. Against this assessee contended that the provisions of section 56(2

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)

2,90,93,500/- made by the AO by applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, it is noted that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of 15 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur accounts as sales are already part of the income which

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

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 by treating the exempt LTCG as alleged unexplained cash\ncredit. And also made the addition of Rs.5,76,262/- u/s 69C on account of alleged\nunexplained expenditure @ 6% for obtaining these alleged bogus LTCG.\n\n2.2\nIn first appeal before ld. CIT (A), assessee has filed detailed written\nsubmission and documents. However, the ld. CIT(A) has summarily rejected

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

68,81,546/- and shown long term capital gain of Rs.5,39,67,684/- and claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs.5,39,67,384/-. The AO noted that the sale of agricultural lands at Muhana, Sanganer have been made on 06/02/2013 and further agricultural lands purchased on 28/08/2014 at Mauja Shiekpur, Fatehabad. Thus, it was noted by the AO that

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C provides that in cases where the nature and source of investments or acquisition of money, bullion or expenditure incurred are not explained at all, or not satisfactorily explained, then, the value of such investments and money, or value of articles not recorded in the books of accounts or the unexplained expenditure may be deemed

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

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)

2,01,92,401/- in his books of accounts for the year under consideration the assessee did not file any details/information for establishing the genuineness and creditworthiness of such fresh unsecured loans from the various parties, therefore, the same were treated as unexplained cash credits in the books of accounts of the assessee as per provision of section 68

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 /

2. There is a Credit entry in the books of account and 3. The assesee either have no explanation about this entry or the learned AO is not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. All the following three conditions cumulatively should fulfill before applying the provisions of section 68 of the income tax Act 1961. However