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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 as all the circumstantial evidence found in the course of search conducted by the department proves that the money so received is an advance against the sale of agricultural land. The benefit of doubt, thus, goes in favour of the assessee so far as regard the nature of receipt is concerned as section 292C cast an obligation upon

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 as all the circumstantial evidence found in the course of search conducted by the department proves that the money so received is an advance against the sale of agricultural land. The benefit of doubt, thus, goes in favour of the assessee so far as regard the nature of receipt is concerned as section 292C cast an obligation upon

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 as all the circumstantial evidence found in the course of search conducted by the department proves that the money so received is an advance against the sale of agricultural land. The benefit of doubt, thus, goes in favour of the assessee so far as regard the nature of receipt is concerned as section 292C cast an obligation upon

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 as all the circumstantial evidence found in the course of search conducted by the department proves that the money so received is an advance against the sale of agricultural land. The benefit of doubt, thus, goes in favour of the assessee so far as regard the nature of receipt is concerned as section 292C cast an obligation upon

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)

78, dated 16 July 2007 The assessee was found to be in possession of loose slips and not any valuable article or things. Neither the possession nor the ownership of any jewelry mentioned in the slips was proved. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly held that the provisions of section 69A of the Act were not applicable. The Tribunal also

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 /

78, dated 16 July 2007 The assessee was found to be in possession of loose slips and not any valuable article or things. Neither the possession nor the ownership of any jewelry mentioned in the slips was proved. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly held that the provisions of section 69A of the Act were not applicable. The Tribunal also

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

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. While making the addition ld. AO relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 32 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-VI Vs. T. S. Kishan & Co. Ltd., [2014] 50 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi). This decision deals with the share capital credit

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, section 69D and so rightly not invoked provisions of section 115BBE while determining tax payable by assessee on assessment but determined tax payable by assessee at normal tax rates as is evident from assessment order. The AO in the notice u/s 154 issued to assessee

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

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

section 68 on account of share\napplication money – Held, yes.\n3. 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) CIT Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd.\nIf the shares holders are identified and it established that they have invested\nmoney in the purchases of shares, then the amount received by the company\nwould be regarded as a application receipt

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68-69 15 Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT g. Copy of Confirmations & Affidavit 70-73 2. Copy of documentary evidences to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of M/s Anchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. a. Copy of Share application form 74-75 b. Copy of Board Resolution 76-77 c. Copy of PAN Card 78 d. Copy of Bank Statement

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

78,08,630 is considered as unexplained amount credited in the books of the assessee. As the assessee could not provide any satisfactory arguments for amount credited in the books, and thus considering the provisions of section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 r.w.s. 115BBE. Reject plea for peak credit, unabsorbed depreciation, and MAT credit set-off. The ld. DR vide submission dated 14.07.2025 further submitted as under : I. Limitation Period Under Section 149(1)(b) is Fully Alive The assessee has contended that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. However, this contention is devoid of merit in view

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 68 - Held, yes The ITAT referred to the Bombay High Cort judgement in the case of CIT v. Green Infra Ltd. /2017] 78

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 115BBE of the Act will have no application so as to treat the income of the assessee as income from other sources. As in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. [1994 (1) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] on identical facts took the view that when cash sales are admitted and income from sales are declared

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)

68,920/- made by ld.AO on account of unrecorded sales computed on the basis of loose papers found, and thus addition was restricted to Rs.26,031/-. A.Y. 2016-17: - GP rate of 9.06% was applied as against 7.93% declared by assessee. Accordingly, Trading Addition was restricted to Rs.8,12,514/-. - Addition of Rs.2,72,61,475/- made by ld.AO