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 has held that the opinion of the assessing officer for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee as not satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of material and other attending circumstances available on record. The court further held that the opinion of the assessing officer is required to be formed

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

section 68 of\nthe Act is correct and required to be sustained.\n9. In the rejoinder, the Id. AR of the assessee stated that the principles\nof probabilities falls enquiry of the assessee, the assessee has received\nadvances and notices issued in majority of the cases have been served\nand replies were also received and therefore, the decision

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

40,137/- under the Provisions of Section 69B of the Act. This section relates to investment made by the assessee in the acquisition of bullion jewellery or other valuable articles but it does not speak about any investment in debtors. Moreover, Section 69B also stipulates the position where the investment exceeds the amount shown in the books

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

40,137/- under the Provisions of Section 69B of the Act. This section relates to investment made by the assessee in the acquisition of bullion jewellery or other valuable articles but it does not speak about any investment in debtors. Moreover, Section 69B also stipulates the position where the investment exceeds the amount shown in the books

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

40,137/- under the Provisions of Section 69B of the Act. This section relates to investment made by the assessee in the acquisition of bullion jewellery or other valuable articles but it does not speak about any investment in debtors. Moreover, Section 69B also stipulates the position where the investment exceeds the amount shown in the books

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

40,137/- under the Provisions of Section 69B of the Act. This section relates to investment made by the assessee in the acquisition of bullion jewellery or other valuable articles but it does not speak about any investment in debtors. Moreover, Section 69B also stipulates the position where the investment exceeds the amount shown in the books

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)

40 Abhay Chordia, Jaipur. of Rs. 4,35,91,454/- made under section 68 of the Act as the same

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)

40,000 is treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income

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)

40,000 is treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income

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)

40 TTJ (indore) 668 k) ACIT V Ashok Kumar Poddar (2008) 16 DTR (kol.) (Trib.) 55 Ground no. 4 That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in applying the 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 /

40 TTJ (indore) 668 k) ACIT V Ashok Kumar Poddar (2008) 16 DTR (kol.) (Trib.) 55 Ground no. 4 That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in applying the section 68

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 of the Act. While making the addition ld. AO relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 32 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-VI Vs. T. S. Kishan & Co. Ltd., [2014] 50 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi). This decision deals with the share capital credit

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 the Act. “ To attract deeming provision of sections 69A of the Act the foremost requirements that is to be followed is that the income should be from any other source rather than from its regular source of earning. Further, ld CIT(A) has not issued notice u/s 251(2) of I.Tax Act as this finding is amount

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

Bench: Him.

section 68 because the cash deposits becomes self-explanatory and such amounts were received by the assessee from the customers against which the delivery of the vehicle was made to the customers. The question of sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,98,000 would not arise. We, therefore, hold that no addition was required to be made in respect

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 of the Act and the evidence so placed on record, we are of the considered view that the addition made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is without appreciating the provision of law prevailing and the evidence placed on record by the assessee. We get support of our view from the decision

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 of the Act. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decisions are as under :- Mehul V. Vyas vs. Income Tax Officer 164 ITR 296 Income Tax Officer vs. Kamal Kumar Mishra 143 ITD 686 (Lucknow) 4 Shri Rajesh Chachwani, Jaiupr. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the income surrendered by the assessee is income from other sources

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 68 of the Act and specifically\nreferring the first proviso reads as under:\n\"The person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also\noffers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited.\"\nIn view of the above, the proviso specifically, made the person accountable and\nincluded

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 68 of the Act and specifically\nreferring the first proviso reads as under:\n\"The person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also\noffers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited.\"\nIn view of the above, the proviso specifically, made the person accountable and\nincluded

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 68 of the Act and specifically\nreferring the first proviso reads as under:\n\"The person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also\noffers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited.\"\nIn view of the above, the proviso specifically, made the person accountable and\nincluded