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…” 4.14.iv ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Roop Square Pvt Ltd ITA No. 198 and 249/Chand/2021 [CLC Page 183 to 190] 4.14.v ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of Senco Alankar, ITA No. 10/Kol/2021 [CLC Page 191-197] 4.15. It is submitted that ld. AO without enquiring the matter further, just

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

34 ITR 807 (SC)\nThis decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is on different facts and context. The decision\nrelates to Gift received by the assessee wherein onus, under section 68

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 of the Act. In support of the sales so made by the assessee the ld. AR of the assessee stated that the assessee has submitted for the year under consideration and for the previous year cash book, sales bills / sales register, stock register and Bank statement. The books of accounts were regularly maintained and are audited by an independent

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

34. revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2016-17. In this appeal revenue has taken following grounds of appeal 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,02,275/ made on account of unexplained cash without appreciating the fact

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

34. revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2016-17. In this appeal revenue has taken following grounds of appeal 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,02,275/ made on account of unexplained cash without appreciating the fact

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

34. revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2016-17. In this appeal revenue has taken following grounds of appeal 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,02,275/ made on account of unexplained cash without appreciating the fact

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

34. revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2016-17. In this appeal revenue has taken following grounds of appeal 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,02,275/ made on account of unexplained cash without appreciating the fact

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 and 115BBE on income already disclosed by the assessee. Ground NO. 5 That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT Appeal has erred in passing the order in the name of deceased persons in-spite of the fact that this fact was communicated well before in time to the learned

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 and 115BBE on income already disclosed by the assessee. Ground NO. 5 That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT Appeal has erred in passing the order in the name of deceased persons in-spite of the fact that this fact was communicated well before in time to the learned

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)

34,571/- to the total income of the Appellant for the AY 17-18 vide its order dated 06.02.2025 (Refer page No. 67-84 of Paper Book) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') on the ground that appellant failed to produce supporting evidences to establish genuineness of parties

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)

68 of Income Tax Act for the addition. The provisions of section 69A specify the authority mentioned as “Assessing Officer”. For the sake of clarity, we are reproducing the provisions of section 69A of I.Tax Act as stood for AY 2017-18 as under:- “69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner

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

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

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2. I, therefore, propose to assess/re-assess the income for the\nsaid assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within\n30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed\nform of your income for the said assessment year.\n3. This notice is being issued

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 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2. I, therefore, propose to assess/re-assess the income for the\nsaid assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within\n30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed\nform of your income for the said assessment year.\n3. This notice is being issued

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 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n\n2. I, therefore, propose to assess/re-assess the income for the\nsaid assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within\n30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed\nform of your income for the said assessment year.\n\n3. This notice

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 68: The onus to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and it failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,26,72,500/- which is cash deposited in the bank during the period of demonetization is considered as unexplained cash credits……” Findings of the Ld. CIT(A): (Para 7 on Page

RIDHIRAJ BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, NCRB, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

34 ITR 807 (SC), there can be no dispute in the facts of the present case regarding the applicability of sections 69 and 69A and section 115BBE of the Act. The unexplained cash loans are hereby held as taxable as per section 69 of the Act. Alternatively, the unexplained money which was given/used in giving unexplained cash