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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 treatings deposits of SBNs found in its bank\naccount as unexplained credit in hands of assessee Held, yes [Paras 70 to 77] [In\nfavour of revenue]\"\nThe relevant paras from the order are as under:-\n\"72. Furthermore, the conduct of the assessee was abnormal and it had caused\nimmense harm to well intention notification

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

68 (Allahabad)/[2021] 438 ITR 657 (Allahabad)\n[10-02-2020) held that Where Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of\ncontract/subcontract income but failed to add interest income shown in books as\nother income, subsequently, on basis of audit objection, Assessing Officer was\njustified in invoking section 147/148 and reassessing 'interest income\nHon'ble Supreme Court

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

35 (Del.) (iii) CIT vs. Hindustan Charity Trust (1983) 139 ITR 913 (Cal.) (iv) CIT vs. Arbindo Memorial Fund Society (2001) 247 ITR 93 (Mad.) (v) St. Thomas Education Society v. Asst. DIT (2007) 11 SOT 340 (Mum.) 42. In view of the above submissions and case laws, it was submitted that the contribution made to JNU by the assessee

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27\nof 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such\nreference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing\nOfficer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act.\n[Explanation 1]. —For the purposes of this section, \"Valuation

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. "Or the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on unexplained jewelry of Rs.25,34,587/- ignoring the fact that the assessee has not submitted any concrete evidence in support of jewelry found during search proceedings." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. "Or the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on unexplained jewelry of Rs.25,34,587/- ignoring the fact that the assessee has not submitted any concrete evidence in support of jewelry found during search proceedings." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. "Or the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on unexplained jewelry of Rs.25,34,587/- ignoring the fact that the assessee has not submitted any concrete evidence in support of jewelry found during search proceedings." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. "Or the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on unexplained jewelry of Rs.25,34,587/- ignoring the fact that the assessee has not submitted any concrete evidence in support of jewelry found during search proceedings." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

68 of the Act.” 4 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in business of Real estate. The assessee e-filed its return of income on 22.10.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 15,62,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. A notice u/s 143(2

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

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 145(3) of the Act is not relevant here as the declared trading results have not been disturbed. In view of such facts, the decisions relied upon by the assessee/appellant are not relevant. Point 4(B) As mentioned in preceding para, the AO has not accepted the abnormal cash sales shown in the months of October and November

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 to 69A are made. Penal statutes which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offenses will only be prospective by reason of the constitutional restriction imposed by Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if an Act creates a new offense, it will bring into its fold only those offenders who commit all ingredients

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

2(a) to s. 263—Further, merely because the assessee has taken a mistaken view of the correct legal position by wrongly showing such additional income under head income from other sources in her return, the same cannot be taken as an admission as there is no estoppel against statute—Therefore, Principal CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions

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)

2) of section 120 or any other provision of this Act, and the 33[Additional Commissioner or] 34[Additional Director or] 35[Joint Commissioner or Joint Director] who is directed under clause (b) of sub­section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing

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

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)

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted