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)

68. The second decision relied upon is in the case of Agson Gobal Private Limited 115 taxmann.com 342 wherein it is held that “ “It is not the case of the 37 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur revenue that assessee has not shown the relevant stock register before the assessing officer. The assessee has maintained the complete stock

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

section 68 of the Act in respect of\ndeposits made into the bank account”.\n2.29. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case\nof Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37

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)

68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the income of the assessee. Also expenses claimed related to the receipt from DRAIPL are not explained therefore 10% of the proportionate expenses that is 2,65,36,577 is disallowed under section 37

RADHAKISHNA 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)

68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the income of the assessee. Also expenses claimed related to the receipt from DRAIPL are not explained therefore 10% of the proportionate expenses that is 2,65,36,577 is disallowed under section 37

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 of Act as the explanation furnished by you in respect of 347 bills during the short period available in the evening of 08.11.2016 does not sound plausible. The assessee submitted its reply stating that the assessee has got a retail outlet in the name of M/s Ashok Jewels India Retail and it is situated in a three

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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 have been erroneously applied by the learned AO. In view of this it is submitted that provisions of section 115BBE are also not applicable in the case of the assessee. Further no additions in this case 37

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 have been erroneously applied by the learned AO. In view of this it is submitted that provisions of section 115BBE are also not applicable in the case of the assessee. Further no additions in this case 37

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 can be made and is held by the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 37

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)

37,53,760.12 -5,39,05,239.88 GP Rate 6.34% -36.10% As per findings of CIT(A), the trading results of the assessee shows GP rate of -36.10% which was not possible in the trade of the assessee. The cash deposited in the demonetized currency added as income of the assessee by applying the provisions of section 68

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

Bench: Him.

37,95,560 U/S 68 AND INVOCATION OF SECTION 115BBE 1. ASSESSING OFFICER AND NFAC 1.1. Ld. AO made

RAYS POWER EXPERTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

68-Commissioner (Appeals) upheld addition - Whether on facts, addition was justified-Held, yes Whether however, since sufficient time was not allowed to assessee to produce those parties, located at different places and make effective representation, addition should be restored to file of Assessing Officer for deciding same afresh, after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity to assessee-Held, yes 9 Rays

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

37,00,000/- credited in the books of account of the assessee is its money and is liable to be added to its total income as unexplained credit as per Section 68

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, it is evident that assessing officer can make addition u/s 68 only under two circumstances, i.e.: (iii) Appellant does not offer any explanation about nature and source of such credit or (iv) Explanation offered by Appellant is not upto the satisfaction of Ld. AO. 37

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68 of the IT. Act, 1961 cannot be applied as the entries were found in the Bank books, the proposition is not correct as held in 37