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 but it should have been made u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 then the jurisdiction of CIT (A) in limited to deciding the matter whether the addition u/s 69A is correct or not. In the appellate proceeding the addition cannot be confirmed by applying all together different section by invoking a section for which satisfaction

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)

7. Thus, the provision of section 68 cannot be applied to the income which is already recorded in the books

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

section 68 of the Act in respect of\ndeposits made into the bank account”.\n2.29. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case\nof Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 [PB 198-213] in\nwhich judgment is delivered in the background of promulgation of High\nDemonetization Bank Notes

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)

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act by the AO and consequentially sustaining levy of tax @ 60% plus 25% S.C., etc. on the additions of Rs. 4,35,91,454/- is most arbitrary, unjust and untenable in fact and in law. 7

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 read with section 115BBE, if the names and addresses of the buyers are not mentioned in the cash memo. d. A professional will have also to prove the nature and source of his receipts in a definite manner by maintaining the record on the basis of some norms. Thus considering the facts of the case I find that

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 is not applicable in respect of any entry in document - Dy. CIT v. Raja Udayshankar [2006] 7

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 is not applicable in respect of any entry in document - Dy. CIT v. Raja Udayshankar [2006] 7

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 is not applicable in respect of any entry in document - Dy. CIT v. Raja Udayshankar [2006] 7

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 is not applicable in respect of any entry in document - Dy. CIT v. Raja Udayshankar [2006] 7

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 on income of Rs. 645810/- surrendered by the assessee in revised computation which is again illegal and deserves to be deleted. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT Appeal has erred in passing the order in the name of deceased persons in-spite of the fact that this

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 on income of Rs. 645810/- surrendered by the assessee in revised computation which is again illegal and deserves to be deleted. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT Appeal has erred in passing the order in the name of deceased persons in-spite of the fact that this

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 to 69D has applied Section 115 BBE, which is incorrect as per the relevant scheme. 2.3. Ld. CIT(A) at Page 13 of her order has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd, ITA No. 157/JP/2017, for the proposition that the amendment brought about in Section

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 to 69D has applied Section 115 BBE, which is incorrect as per the relevant scheme. 2.3. Ld. CIT(A) at Page 13 of her order has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd, ITA No. 157/JP/2017, for the proposition that the amendment brought about in Section

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)

7,55,95,441 by making the following addition: • Unexplained cash credits under section 68 of Act of Rs 6,26,68

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)

7,55,95,441 by making the following addition: • Unexplained cash credits under section 68 of Act of Rs 6,26,68

SHRI HARI NARAIN GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 , section 69, section 69A , section 69B , section 69C or section 69D, the income tax payable shall be at the rate of 30% on income so referred in said sections. Further, in terms of amended provisions of section 115BBE by the Taxation 7

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 Act. In the appellate order, in page No. 7, para (v), the ld. CIT(A) has noted

DR. VISHAN SWAROOP GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 13/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Cuke Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 2, Scheme No. 2, Arya Ward 7(3) Vihar Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abipg 2253 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer) In Making An Addition Of Rs. 4,03,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act As Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposited In Bank Accounts. 2. The Appellant Contends That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Ought Not To Have Upheld The Action Of 2

7(3), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing officer) in making an addition of Rs. 4,03,000/- under section 68