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)

45,83,340. Subsequently, case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and order, dated 03.12.2019, was passed under Section 143(3), at a total income of Rs. 1,25,83,340, thereby resulting into addition of Rs. 80,00,000. Ld. AO while passing the order made additions under Section 68

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)

section 68 6,45,810.00 Total 15,31,310.00 Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned AO the assessee

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 /

section 68 6,45,810.00 Total 15,31,310.00 Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned AO the assessee

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)

45,64,700, thereby resulting into addition of Rs. 4,35,91,454 under Section 68and also invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE. 2. Against the order passed by ld. AO, assessee preferred first appeal. Vide order under section 250 dated 29/07/2025, Ld. CIT (A), Jaipur –5 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Jaipur 1/10987/2019-20, dismissed the appeal

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

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

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 to 69A are made. Penal statutes which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offenses will only be prospective by reason of the constitutional restriction imposed by Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if an Act creates a new offense, it will bring into its fold only those offenders who commit all ingredients

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 or that of 69A of the Act. Based on these observations ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. (ii) 2022 (10) TMI 116 - ITAT JAIPUR ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR VERSUS M/S MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA) (Copy at Case laws PB Page No 121-173) 45

DR. VISHAN SWAROOP GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 13/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Cuke Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 2, Scheme No. 2, Arya Ward 7(3) Vihar Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abipg 2253 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer) In Making An Addition Of Rs. 4,03,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act As Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposited In Bank Accounts. 2. The Appellant Contends That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Ought Not To Have Upheld The Action Of 2

section 68 of the Act and hence, the same needs to be deleted. 6.2 Cash gift from son Rs 75,000 (a) The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs 75,000 as unexplained cash credit in 6 ITA 13/JP/2020_ Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta Vs ITO respect of the gift received

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, falls within the 'scope of total income' as defined in section 2(45

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

68,080/- which included long term capital gain of Rs.32,73,855/- after claiming deduction u/s 54 of Rs. 20 lakhs. 2.1 In course of assessment proceedings, assessee explained that he was having a land at Khasra Nos. 9, 12, 26 and 27 at Village Livari, Ajmer which was purchased by him for Rs. 4,40,000/- from Shri Madan

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

Bench: Him.

45, Ghee Walon Ka Ward-2, Rasta Johari Bazar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGPT 4166 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Th. V.C.) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 09/01/2025

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

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

45,014,870 22,334,502 50% 23.73% 1.95% 2018-19 2019-20 42,790,657 15,239,611 36% 24.88% 1.78% The addition under section 68 on account of cash deposits could not be made simply on the reason that during the demonetization period, cash deposits vis-à-vis cash sales ratio was higher. If customers during