PRAKASH CHAND SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68, 69 or\n69A.\nIn view of the aforesaid facts, the Learned PCIT Central has erred in passing order u/s\n263. The same requires to be quashed.\n(V)\nOrder passed by the learned AO is not erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of\nthe revenue.\n15\nITA Nos. 477 to 479/JP/2024\nMukesh Kumar Saini vs. PCIT\nIt is further

LAXMI NARAYAN SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

68, 69 or\n69A.\nIn view of the aforesaid facts, the Learned PCIT Central has erred in passing order u/s\n263. The same requires to be quashed.\n(V)\nOrder passed by the learned AO is not erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of\nthe revenue.\n15\nITA Nos. 477 to 479/JP/2024\nMukesh Kumar Saini vs. PCIT\nIt is further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. It is noted that in the case of Motisons Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT and cross appeal in ITA No. 481, 554, 482

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. It is noted that in the case of Motisons Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT and cross appeal in ITA No. 481, 554, 482

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

section 68 of the Act. On the contrary, the assessee has produced the following documentary evidence in support of the claim :- M/s Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd S. No. Particulars Paper Book Page No. 426-427 1 Copy of Ack. of ITR of AY 2010-11 along with computation sheet 428-433 2 Copy of Balance sheet

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

section 68 of the Act. On the contrary, the assessee has produced the following documentary evidence in support of the claim :- M/s Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd S. No. Particulars Paper Book Page No. 426-427 1 Copy of Ack. of ITR of AY 2010-11 along with computation sheet 428-433 2 Copy of Balance sheet

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

68,69 or under the head income from other sources or business income, (ii) whether the tax on the surrender income should be charged at the rate of 30% +cess or the rate of 60% and Surcharge @25% +3% cess. 3.4 As from the surrender, it is cleared that the surrender was made on account of sundry debtors. As during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

482-485 16 Copy of letter for confirmation of source of funds used for applying the shares along with supporting documents M/s Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. S. No. Particulars Paper Book Page No. 486-487 1 Copy of Ack. of ITR of AY 2010-11 along with computation sheet 488-489 2 Copy of Balance sheet

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

482-485 16 Copy of letter for confirmation of source of funds used for applying the shares along with supporting documents M/s Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. S. No. Particulars Paper Book Page No. 486-487 1 Copy of Ack. of ITR of AY 2010-11 along with computation sheet 488-489 2 Copy of Balance sheet

M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

482-485 16 Copy of letter for confirmation of source of funds used for applying the shares along with supporting documents M/s Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. S. No. Particulars Paper Book Page No. 486-487 1 Copy of Ack. of ITR of AY 2010-11 along with computation sheet 488-489 2 Copy of Balance sheet

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

68 of the Act. Whether the AO has invoked\nthe deeming provisions of section 69 and brought to tax excess stock found during the\ncourse of survey which is sustained by the Id CIT(A)? - In the instant case there is no\nphysical distinction between the accounted stock and unaccounted stock. No such\nphysical distinction was found

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

68 of the Act. Whether the AO has invoked the deeming provisions of section 69 and brought to tax excess stock found during the course of survey which is sustained by the Id CIT(A)? - In the instant case there is no physical distinction between the accounted stock and unaccounted stock. No such physical distinction was found

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 69 cannot be invoked and the sundry debtors has to be treated as business or profession income of the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, no existence of evidence in relation to any unaccounted independent identifiable other investment which was found during the course of survey. It is also admitted fact the appellant admittedly is engaged in business

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. Brief facts pertaining to this ground of appeal are that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,16,00,000/- in its bank account No. 660520110000367 with Bank of India during the demonetization period in SBN of Rs.1000/- and 500/- rupee notes. The immediate source of such cash was explained as the cash