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)

6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

6. We also note that the provisions of section 68 cannot be appliedin relation to\nthe sales receipt shown

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, 69, 69A, 698, 69C, or 69D. However, it is essential to consider the broader legal implications of Section 271AAC(1) and its interplay with Section 115BBE 6

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

section 68 because the cash deposits becomes self-explanatory and such amounts were received by the assessee from the customers against which the delivery of the vehicle was made to the customers. The question of sustaining the addition of Rs. 6

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 because the cash deposits becomes self-explanatory and such amounts were received by the assessee from the customers against which the delivery of the vehicle was made to the customers. The question of sustaining the addition of Rs. 6

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

section 68 because the cash deposits becomes\nself-explanatory and such amounts were received by the assessee from the\ncustomers against which the delivery of the vehicle was made to the\ncustomers. The question of sustaining the addition of Rs. 6

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

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

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)

6: 1. 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

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nResidential status (Individual) - Assessment year 2005-06\nWhether where an assessee, a citizen of India, had left\nIndia during previous year for purpose of employment\noutside India and his stay in India during relevant period\nwas only 68

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. In the circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.16,52,000/- made by ld. AO without appreciating the details and evidences filed, deserves to be deleted.” 6

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 and what constitute books of accounts etc.. Assessee has maintained 'books' 6. The AO before invoking

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 and what constitute books of accounts etc.. Assessee has maintained 'books' 6. The AO before invoking

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 and what constitute books of accounts etc.. Assessee has maintained 'books' 6. The AO before invoking

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 and what constitute books of accounts etc.. Assessee has maintained 'books' 6. The AO before invoking

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. C.2. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. C.2. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment

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)

6,00,000/­ as unexplained credit. However, the Assessing Officer has not mentioned the relevant section under which, the addition was made, but "unexplained credit" comes under section 68

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 I.T. Act. N. Because the Appellant had furnished loan confirmations of 17 parties before the Ld. AO and 53 parties belatedly before the Ld. CIT(A). Despite the documents 6