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)

73,000/- . It is surprised to note that the cash deposit in this account during financial year 2015-16 was NIL. Thus, the assessee has admitted 2012.23% increase in cash deposit from cash deposited during financial year. In order to verify source of cash deposit major cash receipts entries from the cash book during financial year 2016-17 for which

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)

73,250. Subsequently, case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and order dated 28/12/2019 was passed underSection 143(3) at a total income of Rs. 5,45,64,700, thereby resulting into addition of Rs. 4,35,91,454 under Section 68and also invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE. 2. Against the order passed

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

73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - "I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2. I, therefore, propose to assess/re-assess the income for the\nsaid assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within\n30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed\nform of your income for the said assessment year.\n3. This notice is being issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2. I, therefore, propose to assess/re-assess the income for the\nsaid assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within\n30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed\nform of your income for the said assessment year.\n3. This notice is being issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n\n2. I, therefore, propose to assess/re-assess the income for the\nsaid assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within\n30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed\nform of your income for the said assessment year.\n\n3. This notice

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

73 to 81. In Para 81 (the concluding para) the Hon`ble SC has mentioned as under :- “81. This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to “pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assessees concerned.” Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section

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

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act while the provisions of 68 as such are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts because the sale transaction are already part of the income which is already credited in Profit & Loss Account, therefore there is no occasion to again consider the same as income of the appellant

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (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. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays that ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (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. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays that ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (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. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays that ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (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. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays that ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (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. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays that ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (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. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays that ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable and such order deserves to be upheld. Without prejudice to our legal submission made above, it is submitted that during

SH. TAIYAB KHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

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

73-77 11. Copy of Reply dated 10.12.2019 issued under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 78 22 Sh. Taiyab Khan vs. ACIT S.N PAGE PARTICULARS o NO. 12. Copy of Cash book of Saniya pharma ,Saniya Hospital, Saniya medical and Rehan medical 79-86 13. Copy of Statement Recorded 87-97 14. Copy of submission dated