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)

section 68 cannot be applied to the income which is already recorded in the books of account and the source of receipt is explained out of the stock already available with the assessee. To support these contentions the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following case laws : 30 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur

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

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

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. Submission:- 9. The Appellant is a civil contractor and carries on the business with his proprietary concern M/s Radhakishan, having registration with PWD, Rajasthan in AA class category. Project road work “Widening and Strengthen to two lane with paved shoulder of Nimbi Jodha-Degana-Merta city section of NH-458 from km.0.000 to km.139.900

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. Submission:- 9. The Appellant is a civil contractor and carries on the business with his proprietary concern M/s Radhakishan, having registration with PWD, Rajasthan in AA class category. Project road work “Widening and Strengthen to two lane with paved shoulder of Nimbi Jodha-Degana-Merta city section of NH-458 from km.0.000 to km.139.900

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 of the Act. Since all these grounds challenge the only one addition of unsecured loans taken by the assessee the same are dealt together and decided in the subsequent paras. The brief facts related to the dispute are that the assessee filed his returns of income on 30.12.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 48

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 147 were initiated under the belief that the\nassessee set-off loss on account of Client Code Modification (CCM) of\nRs.36,48,517/. Thus, it is evident that the Assessing Officer has examined\nthe case to the extent to the scope of reason to believe' only.\nIn view of the investigation made by the Investigation of Income

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, it is evident that assessing officer can make addition u/s 68 only under two circumstances, i.e.: (i) Appellant does not offer any explanation about nature and source of such credit or (ii) Explanation offered by Appellant is not upto the satisfaction of Ld. AO. In other words, whenever Appellant provides explanation, before rejecting the same

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

48 (SC) PCIT (Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd.\nThe use of the words 'any sum found credited in the books' in section 68

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

48 (SC) PCIT (Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd.\nThe use of the words 'any sum found credited in the books' in section 68

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

48 (SC) PCIT (Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd.\nThe use of the words 'any sum found credited in the books' in section 68

RIDHIRAJ BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, NCRB, JAIPUR

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

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

48 ITR 254. The surrender income disclosed by the assessee firm is part of the business activities and no other activities are carried out by the assessee firm and also no material or evidence brought on record by the Department and the provisions of section 68

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

48,021,259 72% 19.30% 3.13% 2017-18 2018-19 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

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, not merely the peak. Relied on: PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) Pr. CIT v. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 138 taxmann.com 499 (SC) 7. Misplaced Reliance on Abhisar Buildwell (SC) Inapplicable The assessee's claim that reassessment under Section