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)

3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section

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, section 65. section 69A, section 698, section 690 or section 690 to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub section (1) of section 11588E has been

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

68 as discussed in preceding paragraphs. The appellant gets partial relief accordingly. The ground number 2 is treated as partly allowed.” 5. Feeling not satisfied with the finding so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) on the issue of applicability of section 145(3), 69A and 115BBE of the Act on the issue the assessee preferred the present appeal

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

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)

3) on n 09.12.2019, determining total income at Rs. 21,46,600/- inter-alia making the following additions. S Particulars Amount No. 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 /

3) on n 09.12.2019, determining total income at Rs. 21,46,600/- inter-alia making the following additions. S Particulars Amount No. 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

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)

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. 4.25. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f

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)

68 and 69A of the Act and tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the addition of Rs. 6

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. That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the invoking of provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act by the AO whereby he (the AO) levied tax @ 60% plus 25% S.C., etc. on the additions made by him at Rs.4,35,91,454, which sustaining by the learned CIT(A) 3

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. 6,98,000 would not\narise.\"\n\"We, therefore, hold that no addition was required to be made

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(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

section 12AA as a charitable entity undertaking educational activity and thus qualify as an eligible entity for receiving contributions from the assessee society. The contribution of Rs 3,86,84,912 is made by the assessee society out of income generated during the year under consideration as apparent from the return of income and computation of income available

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

3 raised by the Assessee are allowed." (xvi) In view of the above discussion and the judicial pronouncements, it is held that the AO was not justified in making disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act, in respect of persons whose PAN have been obtained as in view of the provision of section 194C(6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

3 raised by the Assessee are allowed." (xvi) In view of the above discussion and the judicial pronouncements, it is held that the AO was not justified in making disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act, in respect of persons whose PAN have been obtained as in view of the provision of section 194C(6

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

3 raised by the Assessee are allowed." (xvi) In view of the above discussion and the judicial pronouncements, it is held that the AO was not justified in making disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act, in respect of persons whose PAN have been obtained as in view of the provision of section 194C(6

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

3 raised by the Assessee are allowed." (xvi) In view of the above discussion and the judicial pronouncements, it is held that the AO was not justified in making disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act, in respect of persons whose PAN have been obtained as in view of the provision of section 194C(6

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3. The assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. 5.3 Before comments are made on the action by the ld. assessing officer vis- a-vis facts of the case it would be worthwhile to discuss general principle relating to section 68 and what constitute books of accounts

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3. The assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. 5.3 Before comments are made on the action by the ld. assessing officer vis- a-vis facts of the case it would be worthwhile to discuss general principle relating to section 68 and what constitute books of accounts

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3. The assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. 5.3 Before comments are made on the action by the ld. assessing officer vis- a-vis facts of the case it would be worthwhile to discuss general principle relating to section 68 and what constitute books of accounts