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)

C. Parwal, CA & Shri Mahaveer Sharma, CA jktLodh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 21/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short NFAC

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

43,500/- for AY 2007-08, AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 respectively. Accepting the income declared in the returns of income filed u/s 153A, the AO completed the assessments without making any addition, whatsoever. No appeal was preferred by the assessee against the assessment so made. On the other hand, the AO initiated penalty

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)

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, Section 69, Section 69A, Section

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 /

C. The perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mandates that section 68 is applicable only when there is a credit entry in the books of account maintained by the assessee. In this case of the assessed the learned AO has not discussed of any credit entry in any name appearing in the Books

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)

C. The perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mandates that section 68 is applicable only when there is a credit entry in the books of account maintained by the assessee. In this case of the assessed the learned AO has not discussed of any credit entry in any name appearing in the Books

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

43,34,129/- against returned loss of Rs. 23,16,74,228/- and therefore, the reduction in loss of Rs. 4,68,40,099/- clearly comes under the ambit of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and penalty of Rs 1,59,20,950 has been levied. 8. In the aforesaid penalty proceedings, a specific show cause

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

43,34,129/- against returned loss of Rs. 23,16,74,228/- and therefore, the reduction in loss of Rs. 4,68,40,099/- clearly comes under the ambit of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and penalty of Rs 1,59,20,950 has been levied. 8. In the aforesaid penalty proceedings, a specific show cause

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

C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by:\nSh. Rohan Sogani, CA\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nSh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing\n: 05/09/2024\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement:\n10/10/2024\nआदेश/ ORDER\nPER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nThe present appeal is filed by the assessee, as he was dissatisfied

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

c) Furthermore, in support of sale of agriculture produce, the assessee could not furnish any sale vouchers, dharma Kanta parchi for sale of Safeda, copy of contract / agreement etc to substantitate its claim. (d) More importantly, assessee was specifically asked to provide his statement of affairs vide letter dated 16/11/2017, but the same has not been furnished upto the date

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

c) Furthermore, in support of sale of agriculture produce, the assessee could not furnish any sale vouchers, dharma Kanta parchi for sale of Safeda, copy of contract / agreement etc to substantitate its claim. (d) More importantly, assessee was specifically asked to provide his statement of affairs vide letter dated 16/11/2017, but the same has not been furnished upto the date

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

c) Furthermore, in support of sale of agriculture produce, the assessee could not furnish any sale vouchers, dharma Kanta parchi for sale of Safeda, copy of contract / agreement etc to substantitate its claim. (d) More importantly, assessee was specifically asked to provide his statement of affairs vide letter dated 16/11/2017, but the same has not been furnished upto the date

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

c) Furthermore, in support of sale of agriculture produce, the assessee could not furnish any sale vouchers, dharma Kanta parchi for sale of Safeda, copy of contract / agreement etc to substantitate its claim. (d) More importantly, assessee was specifically asked to provide his statement of affairs vide letter dated 16/11/2017, but the same has not been furnished upto the date

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. The cash deposits being SBNs in bank accounts of the assessee during demonetization period amounting to Rs. 6,76,59,000 are unexplained and alternatively taxable under section 69A of the Act. At the same time, since the sales are found to be bogus to that extent, Rs. 6,76,59,000 shall be reduced

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)

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 63,43,891/-on account of short cash in hand. 7 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in making addition

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)

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 63,43,891/-on account of short cash in hand. 7 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in making addition

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)

6. RAS Concepts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer ITA No. 60-64 2352/AHD/2018 [2022] 95 ITR 46 (Ahmedabad- Tribunal) B Where the assessee received unsecured loans and produced confirmation of lenders to establish creditworthiness, genuineness, and identities of lenders in transactions, the impugned addition under section 68 cannot be made 1 ITO Vs. Amar Pratap Steels

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

c) in any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit. (2) The [* * *] Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 20 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

c) in any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit. (2) The [* * *] Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 20 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

c) in any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit. (2) The [* * *] Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 20 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement