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(1

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/- under Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. Reject plea for peak credit, unabsorbed depreciation, and MAT credit set-off. The ld. DR vide submission dated 14.07.2025 further submitted as under : I. Limitation Period Under Section 149(1

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

37,44,058 1,50,13,750 (ii) M/s Ram Bhajo's Jodhpur 4,79,55,354 4,65,15,883 (iii) M/s Ram Bhajo's Jaipur 27,94,24,619 32,89,89,166 (iv) At residence of Partners 63,55,000 Total 35,11,24,031 39,68,73,799 (v) Silver items at residence

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held\r\nthat a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or\r\n139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted\r\nupon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further\r\nproceedings in relation

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Business expenditure – Allowability of – Assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 – Whether expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency – Held, yes. (2009) 32 SOT 9 (Pune) Dy. CIT v. Kolhapur

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

68 of the Act. The Tribunal had applied the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in T.V. Sundariam Iyengar &Sons's case (supra) where the amount which was initially of capital nature but had changed its character to be of revenue nature, it was treated to be taxable income of the assessee. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

37 of Id. CIT(A)\n“11. In the instant case, the notice initiating the penalty proceedings talks\nabout initiation of penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of\nundisclosed income of the specified previous year. However, while passing the\npenalty proceedings, the Assessing officer has given a clear finding as reflected\nin the penalty order that

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

68 but it should have been made u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 then the jurisdiction of CIT (A) in limited to deciding the matter whether the addition u/s 69A is correct or not. In the appellate proceeding the addition cannot be confirmed by applying all together different section by invoking a section for which satisfaction

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 /

37 ITR 151 (SC) Further It is submitted that the learned AO has made the addition under section 69A of the income tax Act 961 which is wrong as the provisions of section 69 A is not applicable upon the assessee. As noted supra the assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts and has filed his return

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)

37 ITR 151 (SC) Further It is submitted that the learned AO has made the addition under section 69A of the income tax Act 961 which is wrong as the provisions of section 69 A is not applicable upon the assessee. As noted supra the assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts and has filed his return

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

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

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 ITR 288 [PB 198-213] in\nwhich judgment is delivered in the background of promulgation of High\nDemonetization Bank Notes