ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

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)

1).Re-assessment order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22 May 2023 was passed by Ld. Faceless Assessing Office (“Ld. FAO”) assessing total income at Rs 7,55,95,441 by making the following addition: • Unexplained cash credits under section 68 of Act of Rs 6

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)

1).Re-assessment order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22 May 2023 was passed by Ld. Faceless Assessing Office (“Ld. FAO”) assessing total income at Rs 7,55,95,441 by making the following addition: • Unexplained cash credits under section 68 of Act of Rs 6

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

6) TMI 1311 and Shri Suresh Chand Mittal Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur, 2018 (7) TMI 220. Thus, it was submitted that the order of imposing penalty under section 271AAB is unlawful and not sustainable in law. 14. It was finally submitted that it is trite law that penalties should not be imposed unless the case falls under

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

6. Decision\n6.1 The statement of facts grounds of appeal, and the order\nappealed against, written submissions explanations have been\nthoroughly examined. The central issue for adjudication among\nall the grounds of appeal raised pertains to the sole issue of\ndenying the deduction claimed as per section 80P of the Act\nwhile processing the return of Income under section

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)

1 Unexplained income under section 69A on account of Cash 8,85,500.00 deposit in bank 885000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act 2 Additions under section 68 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 /

1 Unexplained income under section 69A on account of Cash 8,85,500.00 deposit in bank 885000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act 2 Additions under section 68 6

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held\r\nthat a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or\r\n139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted\r\nupon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further\r\nproceedings in relation

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 by the assessee in its books ofaccounts. It is because the\nsales receipt has already been shown in thebooks of accounts as income at the\ntime of sale only.\n9. 7. We are also aware of the fact that there

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

6 Shri Ramesh Chand Bansal vs DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer 13-10-2010 i.e. after the due date for filing the return 31-07-2008. That makes the explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act clearly applicable. 5.6 Even no return was filed u/s 139. The total income returned in the return in response to Notice

TRANSINDIA NONWOVENS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

6. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) also contended that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and has also referred to the rationale of the amendment as explained by the memorandum in the Finance Bill, 2021. 7. The ld. CIT(A) finally held that the adjustment made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted