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

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The appellant has challenged the addition in the appeal. The appellant has inter- alia submitted that the cash sale from the stock available with the appellant and during the year the appellant adopted new strategy during the month of October 2016 which resulted into high sales for them and further that high sale

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

801 SC, and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 SC. 3. The learned CIT appeal has erred in law and on facts in holding the income to be not taxable as per provisions of Sec. 115BBE of IT Act, 1961. 4. The learned CIT Appeal while granting relief has ignored that the taxpayer was involved in an activity against public

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)

Section 68" it was necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the identity of creditors, the capacity of such creditors and lastly the genuineness of transactions". 7.4 Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal)], it was observed that "it is for the assessee to prove the identity of creditors

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account

DCIT, CC-2,, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee and that of the revenue stands

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

801 (SC) and CIT VSDurga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC)" 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,56,63,325/-in spite of the fact that the cash sales pattern of the preceding 2 year with current year cash sales

M/S. SHRI NATH CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee and that of the revenue stands

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

801 (SC) and CIT VSDurga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC)" 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,56,63,325/-in spite of the fact that the cash sales pattern of the preceding 2 year with current year cash sales

SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors (4) thoir creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, the department is required to undertake further exercise. 8.5 It has been held that merely proving the identity of the investors does not discharge the onus of the assessee, if the capacity

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 68 of the Act. Before going in to the details of the case, it is pertinent to understand the facts, circumstances and ground realities of demonetization period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. On the evening of 08.11.2016 at 8.15 p.m., in a surprise announcement, demonetization of old Rs.500/- and Rs. 1000/- notes was announced by the Government

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

801 SC, and of CIT versus Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 SC. 5. The Appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s Puja Synthetics

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI CHANDRA SURANA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Auditor. Any Stock Register Whatsoever Was Not Furnished During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings To Verify The Quantitative Sale Made During The Year Whether The Item Shown By The Assessee As Sold Was Actually In Stock Of The Assessee Or Not & Quantity & Value Of The Sale Shown Remains Unverified. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Ignoring The Vital Fact.

section 68 of the Act and consequently the aforesaid addition is directed to be deleted. The Ground of Appeal no. 2 & 4 are treated as allowed.’’ During the course of hearing, the ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and 2.3 prayed that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

801 This judgment is related to human probabilities (SC) and circumstantial evidence on the scope of Section 68 of the Act and burden

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 68 of the\nIncome Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the\nassessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the\ncreditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR\n820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

section 68 of the\nIncome Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the\nassessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the\ncreditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR\n820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. AMAR PRATAP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S

68 of the Act in respect of share application money received by the assessee during the year without appreciating the fact that the information was received from investigation wing after thorough verification wherein the identity and credit worthiness of the share applicants as well as the genuineness of the transactions were not proved. 2. On the facts

SHRI MUJAFFAR HUSSEN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Short Delay In Submission Of The Appeal.’’

section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the submitted papers of confirmation of such loans. In this relation we submit that- a. The Appellant was running the business of trading of iron scrap at chaksu. The Appellant have total income Rs. 5,51,150/- during the assessment year 2012-13. As per nature of the business appellant