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)

42 and 43 of the ld. CIT(A) order. The same may please be considered. 4.24. The provisions of Section 115BBE were inserted in the ITA by Finance Act, 2012, with effect from 1.04.2013. Section 115BBE taxed the unexplained credits, money, investment, expenditure, etc., which were deemed as income under Section 68

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. In the circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.16,52,000/- made by ld. AO without appreciating the details and evidences filed, deserves to be deleted

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 which would further amount to allow the paying any tax. Such construction of the provisions, in my considered opinion, is not permitted. - Haji Nazir Hussain v. ITO [2004] 91 ITD 42

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 which would further amount to allow the paying any tax. Such construction of the provisions, in my considered opinion, is not permitted. - Haji Nazir Hussain v. ITO [2004] 91 ITD 42

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 which would further amount to allow the paying any tax. Such construction of the provisions, in my considered opinion, is not permitted. - Haji Nazir Hussain v. ITO [2004] 91 ITD 42

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 which would further amount to allow the paying any tax. Such construction of the provisions, in my considered opinion, is not permitted. - Haji Nazir Hussain v. ITO [2004] 91 ITD 42

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 vs. ITO deserve to be survived. In this case only normal rates of taxes are applicable which have

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 Geeta Devi Agarwal vs. ITO deserve to be survived. In this case only normal rates of taxes are applicable which have

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)

42,00,40,000 is treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income

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)

42,00,40,000 is treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income

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)

68 is invokable then also tax rate of 60% as invoked in the present case under section 115BBE as per Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 i.e. 60% will not apply in the present case. The Ld Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 was w.e.f

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 treating the part of the amount deposited in the bank in demonetized currency (SBNs) as income of assessee from undisclosed sources and accordingly the same was taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer making the assessment based on the above stated facts

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

section 68 and added it\nto income of assessee On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition\nOn revenue's appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs.\n19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of 'D' Ltd. which were converted\ninto drafts and in this manner 'D' Ltd. subscribed to share application of assessee\ncompany

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

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

42,496/- NIL 2016-17 2,72,61,475/- 1,22,06,040/- 1,5055,435/- Besides this ld. AO made the additions in respect of alleged unaccounted net profit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further invoked section

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

42,496/- NIL 2016-17 2,72,61,475/- 1,22,06,040/- 1,5055,435/- Besides this ld. AO made the additions in respect of alleged unaccounted net profit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further invoked section

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

42,496/- NIL 2016-17 2,72,61,475/- 1,22,06,040/- 1,5055,435/- Besides this ld. AO made the additions in respect of alleged unaccounted net profit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further invoked section

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

42,496/- NIL 2016-17 2,72,61,475/- 1,22,06,040/- 1,5055,435/- Besides this ld. AO made the additions in respect of alleged unaccounted net profit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further invoked section