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

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)

68 of the Act. In support of the sales so made by the assessee the ld. AR of the assessee stated that the assessee has submitted for the year under consideration and for the previous year cash book, sales bills / sales register, stock register and Bank statement. The books of accounts were regularly maintained and are audited by an independent

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the act. The appellant in this regard has relied upon various case laws wherein such view is adopted. Since there is no contrary judgment and based on simple interpretation of s. 68, I hold that addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000 is not warranted u/s 68 and hence same is deleted. 9. Even looking otherwise

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the act. The appellant in this regard has relied upon various case laws wherein such view is adopted. Since there is no contrary judgment and based on simple interpretation of s. 68, I hold that addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000 is not warranted u/s 68 and hence same is deleted. 9. Even looking otherwise

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the act. The appellant in this regard has relied upon various case laws wherein such view is adopted. Since there is no contrary judgment and based on simple interpretation of s. 68, I hold that addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000 is not warranted u/s 68 and hence same is deleted. 9. Even looking otherwise

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the act. The appellant in this regard has relied upon various case laws wherein such view is adopted. Since there is no contrary judgment and based on simple interpretation of s. 68, I hold that addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000 is not warranted u/s 68 and hence same is deleted. 9. Even looking otherwise

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)

71 ITR 427 – Regarding the applicability of section 68 the supreme court in the case of Baladin Ram V/s CIT 71

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 /

71 ITR 427 – Regarding the applicability of section 68 the supreme court in the case of Baladin Ram V/s CIT 71

SH. SANJAY BAIRATHI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

71 against the income assessable under section 68 under the head “income from other sources” taking into consideration the conflicting

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)

68 of the Act. In view of above, it is submitted that the assessment order passed is grossly incorrect, based on false assumption and allegation, and without considering the detailed documents submitted during the assessment proceeding the therefore the additions made be directed to be deleted. In addition, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the considering the material placed

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)

68 of the Act. In view of above, it is submitted that the assessment order passed is grossly incorrect, based on false assumption and allegation, and without considering the detailed documents submitted during the assessment proceeding the therefore the additions made be directed to be deleted. In addition, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the considering the material placed

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 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 are assessable under a known source or head of income as enumerated under section 14. If they are so assessable under a head of income specified in section 14 they would then and then only need to be set off against the loss from heads of income in terms of section 71

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against

RIDHIRAJ BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, NCRB, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

71 & 72 of the Act. The provisions of section 115BBE as they stood during the year under consideration also did not bar such set off. The provisions of section 115BBE read as under:- (1) "Where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

71,39,483 in such a short time span if other circumstances are unchanged. …… 5. Applicability of section 68

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

section 68 submitted that considering the facts of the case of the assessee the same cannot be invoked. The assessee submitted all the details. The books of account of the assessee are audited and maintained in accordance with the rules prescribed. No defects whatsoever has been observed by the lower authority. Referring to clause 25 of the Form

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI vs. M/S ARAVALI PRIME CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BUNDI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with no order as to cost

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties

section 133(6) notices does not warrant an 6 ITO, Bundi vs M/s. Aravali Prime Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Bundi adverse inference, (iv) Fact that the shareholders have low income does not warrant adverse inference. CIT v. Vrindavan Farms (P.) Ltd. etc., in ITA.No.71 of 2015 dated 12th August, 2015 held as under :- "The sole basis for the Revenue