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. 3. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE 3.1. Before NFAC, elaborated submission, were made by the assessee which have also been reproduced from Page 9 to 43 of the order. 3.2. Ld. CIT(A), without any cogent basis, in just one para, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by simply mentioning that ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observations

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68 for the cash\ndeposited in the bank, received from cash sales, during the period of\ndemonetization treating the same to be unexplained. Additions made by the\nId. AO were upheld by the NFAC.\n2. SUBMISSIONS\n2.1. Assessee is engaged in the business of retail trade of gems & jewellery.\nDuring the relevant year assessee had received advance

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, the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of the cash transactions and provided no verifiable identity of customers. 4. Submissions 4.1. Elaborate submissions made by the assessee before ld. CIT(A), also reproduced by ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order at Pages 5 to 25, may please be considered in correct perspective. 4.2. Assessee maintained regular books

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961). 10. While making the assessment order the assessing officer has also added a sum of Rs. 12,46,718/- as bogus agricultural income for the year under consideration. The relevant observation of the assessing and submission on this issue is extracted here in below for the sake of brevity Bogus agricultural income claimed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961). 10. While making the assessment order the assessing officer has also added a sum of Rs. 12,46,718/- as bogus agricultural income for the year under consideration. The relevant observation of the assessing and submission on this issue is extracted here in below for the sake of brevity Bogus agricultural income claimed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961). 10. While making the assessment order the assessing officer has also added a sum of Rs. 12,46,718/- as bogus agricultural income for the year under consideration. The relevant observation of the assessing and submission on this issue is extracted here in below for the sake of brevity Bogus agricultural income claimed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961). 10. While making the assessment order the assessing officer has also added a sum of Rs. 12,46,718/- as bogus agricultural income for the year under consideration. The relevant observation of the assessing and submission on this issue is extracted here in below for the sake of brevity Bogus agricultural income claimed

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 148 of the new regime “after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A.” Although

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 of the I T Act, 1961 are invoked here.:- In this regard it is submitted that when the ld. AO has accepted the books of accounts no sect. 68 can be invoked nor applicable. 28 Rukmani Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (a) 5.1 Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,SIKANDARA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

81,41,501/-. On the date of survey the cost of construction was estimated at Rs. 1,14,26,474/- (14580 sq. ft x Rs. 900 per sq. ft.). After discussion with the A/R it is noticed that the area taken during the survey team was just estimated but in the VR actual area is taken

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

68 and 69 and that tax was chargeable under s. 115BBE as against normal rates—Hence, the proceedings initiated under s. 263 and the impugned order are quashed.” 7. Dealing with the objection of the ld. PCIT: The ld. PCIT, in the impugned order [Para 6 page 14], has observed that the AO was wrong while assessing the additional income

PRAKASH CHAND SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)JAIPUR, JAIPUR

81,41,501/-. On the date of\nsurvey the cost of construction was estimated at Rs. 1,14,26,474/- (14580 sq. ft x\nRs. 900 per sq. ft.). After discussion with the A/R it is noticed that the area taken\nduring the survey team was just estimated but in the VR actual area is taken

LAXMI NARAYAN SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

81,41,501/-. On the date of\nsurvey the cost of construction was estimated at Rs. 1,14,26,474/- (14580 sq. ft x\nRs. 900 per sq. ft.). After discussion with the A/R it is noticed that the area taken\nduring the survey team was just estimated but in the VR actual area is taken

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 shall be invoked only in the cases where any sum is found credited in the books of accounts of the assesse and assesse could not provide the explanation about the nature and source of such credited sum or offered explanation is not satisfactory in the opinion of the assessing officer then such credited sum may be charged

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, fails the very first criteria of there being a credit entry in the books of accounts laid down under the Act. It was also submitted before ld.CIT(A) that ld.AO on one hand, accepted the commission income of Rs. 95,11,422/- declared by assessee (on Farmer’s Sale) as such which was received on the gross consignment sales

DINESH KUMAR SONI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

68 on account of unexplained cash credit on the basis of suspicion and surmises. Decision:- (v) The appellant deposited Rs. 58,00,000 in the old currency in his bank account during the period of demonetisation. The appellant has submitted that the source of the same is from the sales made by him in the pre-demonetisation period. From

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

68,940.00 the G.P. rate of 8.60% as against the declared G.P rate of 8.52% declared by assessee 2. On account of late deposit of employee 33,914.00 contribution of Provident Fund and ESI under sec. 36(1)(va) Total Additions 8,02,854.00 12. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) estimated the G.P. @ 8.56% as against

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

68,940.00 the G.P. rate of 8.60% as against the declared G.P rate of 8.52% declared by assessee 2. On account of late deposit of employee 33,914.00 contribution of Provident Fund and ESI under sec. 36(1)(va) Total Additions 8,02,854.00 12. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) estimated the G.P. @ 8.56% as against