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)

68,920/-) (APB 587- 725 Compilation of Papers Volume I Part II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained

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)

68,920/-) (APB 587- 725 Compilation of Papers Volume I Part II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained

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)

68,920/-) (APB 587- 725 Compilation of Papers Volume I Part II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained

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)

68,920/-) (APB 587- 725 Compilation of Papers Volume I Part II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained

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)

68,920/-) (APB 587- 725 Compilation of Papers Volume I Part II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act by the National Faceless Assessment Unit. 2 ITO vs. Vasudev Hemrajani 2. In this appeal, the revenue has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 68 of the Act. Hence, the case was heard by the AO keeping principles of natural justice in mind. 3.1.3 Even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not file any additional evidences under Rule 46A

M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

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

Bench: Him.

section 68. All the aforesaid papers and documents stood submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer under letter dated 07/12/2020 and 15/2/2021. Copies of these letters are available on the additional Paper Book Page No. 16-18being submitted with this submission. It is further submitted that in the assessment order, the Learned Assessing Officer has mentioned regarding the reply

SITA RAM SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. The AO is directed to treat the cash credits of Rs. 3,19,380/- as deemed income of the appellant by considering the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. The ground No. 1 is dismissed.” As the assessee left heavenly abode, vide letter dated 25th January, 5. 2022 legal heirs

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

Section 68 of the Act, Assessee from the sale of stock of Assessee should maintain books of M/s Yamini Investment Company Ltd accounts maintained by the Appellant. was made u/s 68 of the Act , on In the present case , there is no such alleged reason that the Appellant has finding by the Ld.AO that the Appellant routed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR

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

section 68 shall not be invoked. In the underlined case the loans taken by appellant are repaid as well therefore, there is no net credit to the books of the appellant. Therefore, the addition made by the learned AO for Rs2,31,88,312/- is deleted. 8 DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 3.6). Accordingly ground

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

section 142(1) of the Act dated 13.02.2021 was asked to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of loan transactions. The assessee submitted details and on perusal of the same ld. AO noticed that it has failed to justify the unsecured loan from the following parties. (i) Aventez Media Technology- The assessee has received loan

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 for share subscription by various shareholders and Rs. 5,95,00,000/- taken by the assessee as unsecured loans and the same was also added u/s. 68 of Act. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a detailed paper book containing 273 pages wherein he has submitted all the relied upon evidence such as submission made

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

68 of the Act. The Tribunal had applied the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in T.V. Sundariam Iyengar &Sons's case (supra) where the amount which was initially of capital nature but had changed its character to be of revenue nature, it was treated to be taxable income of the assessee. Thus, the amount

KAWALJEET DHANRAJSING RANAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, AMRAWATI

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 68 of the Act. Simply, by passing on the onus on Appellate Authority or the AO will not absolve him. We have further analysed the information furnished by the assessee pertaining to Geetaben Bharat Oswal and it is observed that during the year under consideration the creditor declared the income of Rs. 2,66,590/- (after claiming deductions

BABU LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

68\nread with section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. At the appellate proceedings, the Id. CIT\n(A) called for remand report from the AO, the extract of which are as under :-\n\"Please refer to the above aforementioned subject. Aforesaid appeal is\npending in this office for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The LD.AR of the\nappellant