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)

43 Geeta Devi Agarwal vs. ITO disclosed Rs. 12,61,100 = Rs. 6,45,810/-], ld. AO taxed that differential amount as undisclosed income as per provision of 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 /

43 Geeta Devi Agarwal vs. ITO disclosed Rs. 12,61,100 = Rs. 6,45,810/-], ld. AO taxed that differential amount as undisclosed income as per provision of section 68

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 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: “6. Decision: 6.1 I have gone through the order passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant

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 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: “6. Decision: 6.1 I have gone through the order passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant

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)

43 taxmann.com 91 121-123 28 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT D. Once an assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness, then it is for the AO to conduct a further enquiry and call for more details before invoking Section 68

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)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will

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

M/S RAMAVTAR KRISHANAVTAR,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section enforced with effect from 1st April, 2006. The rule and notification issued in the present case effectuate the statutory and the legislative mandate. There is no good ground or reason why the notification in question should not be given effect from 1st April, 2006. No reason or ground is alleged or argued to contend that National Stock Exchange

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

Bench: Him.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against

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 and added it to income of assessee – On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition – On revenue’s appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs. 19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of ‘D’ Ltd. which were converted into drafts and in this manner ‘D’ Ltd. subscribed to share capital of assessee company

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

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per section 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 6 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. 9.3 I have considered

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

68 etc. The action of the AO in taxing as per section 115BBE is found to be as per provisions of the IT Act and upheld This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed.’’ Ground No. 6 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. 9.3 I have considered

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI vs. M/S ARAVALI PRIME CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BUNDI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with no order as to cost

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties

section 68. [CIT v Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. [2010] 194 Taxman 43 (Delhil]. Having no business activity or having