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 of the Act as against addition made by ld. AO u/s 69A and taxing the same by applying provisions of section 115BBE of IT. Act alleging the same as undisclosed income of appellant and further erred in reducing the same income from business income declared by the assessee and adding the same as Income from other sources

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 treatings deposits of SBNs found in its bank\naccount as unexplained credit in hands of assessee Held, yes [Paras 70 to 77] [In\nfavour of revenue]\"\nThe relevant paras from the order are as under:-\n\"72. Furthermore, the conduct of the assessee was abnormal and it had caused\nimmense harm to well intention notification

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

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)

2. 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 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact

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)

2. 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 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

8. Section 68 essentially contains a deeming provision which applies when the assessee's explanation about cash credit found in his books is rejected. To invoke this section, it is a sine qua non that the sum must be credited in assessee's books maintained for a previous year. The 'piece of paper' impounded at the time

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

8. Section 68 essentially contains a deeming provision which applies when the assessee's explanation about cash credit found in his books is rejected. To invoke this section, it is a sine qua non that the sum must be credited in assessee's books maintained for a previous year. The 'piece of paper' impounded at the time

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

8. Section 68 essentially contains a deeming provision which applies when the assessee's explanation about cash credit found in his books is rejected. To invoke this section, it is a sine qua non that the sum must be credited in assessee's books maintained for a previous year. The 'piece of paper' impounded at the time

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

8. Section 68 essentially contains a deeming provision which applies when the assessee's explanation about cash credit found in his books is rejected. To invoke this section, it is a sine qua non that the sum must be credited in assessee's books maintained for a previous year. The 'piece of paper' impounded at the time

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

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

8 Tribunal, the proposed question of law does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained." (x) During the appellate proceedings, the appellant was required to explain why the provisions of section 68 of the Act should not be invoked instead of provisions of section 56 as invoked by the AO. In response

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

8 Tribunal, the proposed question of law does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained." (x) During the appellate proceedings, the appellant was required to explain why the provisions of section 68 of the Act should not be invoked instead of provisions of section 56 as invoked by the AO. In response

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act.” 4 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in business of Real estate. The assessee e-filed its return of income on 22.10.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 15,62,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. A notice u/s 143(2

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

8 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur ii.b In the Notice loss of the F.Y. 2019-20 is taken at " 4,21,80,725, whereas the loss as per audited financial statement for the said year is only " 42,18,072. Photocopy of audit profit & loss is enclosed. [PB 30 ] This error has impacted your

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

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

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

8. Clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 263 - Wrongly invoked: The ld. PCIT has dealt with this issue at Pg 15 of the impugned order : 8.1 At the outset, this was never made a ground in the Show Cause Notice issued u/s 263 (PB 73-75) and therefore, the ld. PCIT could not have adopted such reasoning

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8 Flat No. 2,\nRIICO Complex, Sikar Road,\nVKIA Road, Jaipur.\nबनाम\nIncome Tax Officer,\nVs.\nWard 3(1),\nJaipur.\nस्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No. CIJPS 0428 K\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\n\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Adv.\nShri S.L. Jain, Sr. Adv. &\nShri Ashok Ku. Gupta,Adv.\n\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue