MOTHERS EDUCATION HUB,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

40A(2)(b) of IT Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in treating the entire cash deposit during demonetization period as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and thereby enhancing the addition to 2 Mothers Education Hub, Jaipur. Rs. 53,62,500/- as against Rs. 5 lacs made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145(3) of Act. The following additions are made by the AO. S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Trading addition of Rs. 7,68,940/- by applying 7,68,940.00 the G.P. rate of 8.60% as against the declared G.P rate of 8.52% declared by assessee 2. On account of late deposit of employee 33,914.00 contribution of Provident

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145(3) of Act. The following additions are made by the AO. S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Trading addition of Rs. 7,68,940/- by applying 7,68,940.00 the G.P. rate of 8.60% as against the declared G.P rate of 8.52% declared by assessee 2. On account of late deposit of employee 33,914.00 contribution of Provident

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68 has already been met with in the assessment proceeding and 36 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur the issue is raised is without considering the facts already on record submitted vide reply dated 26.12.2019 to the AO. The ld. PCIT in her SCN in point no. v and vi raised those issues which were

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 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

LALITA KUMARI,ANTA DISTRICT BARAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 2(41) as per which a son of brother-in-law is not a relative. 3.) The AO further observed that the assessee had given interest @ 18% P.A. to the person covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is more higher than the prevailing market rate i.e. maximum 12% 6 Lalita Kumari

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A (2) of the Act. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 2. These are four appeals, two filed by assessee & two filed by revenue against the two separate order of Ld. CIT (A) each DT. 06.02.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. Since

SH. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A (2) of the Act. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 2. These are four appeals, two filed by assessee & two filed by revenue against the two separate order of Ld. CIT (A) each DT. 06.02.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. Since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A (2) of the Act. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 2. These are four appeals, two filed by assessee & two filed by revenue against the two separate order of Ld. CIT (A) each DT. 06.02.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. Since

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, which is confirmed. However, as pointed out by the appellant in his submissions, apparently, there is a calculation mistake in the assessment order; thus, interests should have been computed on Rs.1,68

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) on 22.09.2018 and served upon the assessee by Speed\npost, by hand and delivered through e-filing portal. The assessee is\nengaged in the wholesale and retail business in the name of M/s Kanhiya\nLal Prakash Chand.\nAs the assessee during the demonization period deposited cash of\nRs.67,11,000/- into bank accounts and has not submitted his Income

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

40A(3) has been rightly deleted by the ld CIT(A). The ground no. 2 of revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 29. Regarding ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of addition on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs 1,18,34,723 under Section 69C, briefly the facts of the case are that

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

40A(3) of the Act applies to buyer and not the seller. There being no restriction under the Act to accept cash against sales, the assessee Company cannot be penalized. (h) Hon'ble supreme court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohan Kala 291 ITR 278 (SC) has clearly explain that the primary condition for invocation of section

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 to 69D read with section 115BBE The impugned order therefore, lacks valid jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and hence, the impugned order kindly be quashed. 4. That the learned Pr.CIT-3 Jaipur erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate the material placed on record, written submissions furnished and evidence tendered by the appellant

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

40A(3) of the Act applies to buyer and not the seller. There being no restriction under the Act to accept cash against sales, the assessee Company cannot be penalized. (g) Hon'ble supreme court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohan Kala 291 ITR 278 (SC) has clearly explain that the primary condition for invocation of section