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

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

86,887/- as against Rs. 12,95,345/- worked out by the AO in respect of 29.5 Kgs., by applying the silver price at Rs.43,910/- as per valuation report and as also considered by the AO. Since the AO has himself considered 10,000 gms as explained, therefore the undisclosed investment in silver items is considered

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

86,887/- as against Rs. 12,95,345/- worked out by the AO in respect of 29.5 Kgs., by applying the silver price at Rs.43,910/- as per valuation report and as also considered by the AO. Since the AO has himself considered 10,000 gms as explained, therefore the undisclosed investment in silver items is considered

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. 5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: “6. Decision: 6.1 I have gone through the order passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant

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. 5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: “6. Decision: 6.1 I have gone through the order passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant

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 I.T. Act 1. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 124-128 E. CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A, which was necessary for the disposal of the case, when there was justified and reasonable cause for not producing the same before

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)

86,27,500/­ and sustained the addition of Rs.82.00 lacs as mentioned at para 3.2.2. and 2.1.4.6 & 2.1.4.7 of the ld. CIT(A)’s order (supra). The question arises as to whether the ld CIT(A) can make the addition u/s 68 of the Act or not. For this purpose, the definition of Section

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

68 has no application.\nRohini Builders, Nimbus (India) Ltd., and Shankar Industries deal with\ndifferent factual scenarios concerning the scope of proof under Section\n68 of the Act, unexplained share capital, or incomplete evidence of\ncreditors. None of them directly address the specific fact situation of\nrepayment within the same year, making them distinguishable from the\npresent controversy.\nITA

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

68 has no application.\nRohini Builders, Nimbus (India) Ltd., and Shankar Industries deal with\ndifferent factual scenarios concerning the scope of proof under Section\n68 of the Act, unexplained share capital, or incomplete evidence of\ncreditors. None of them directly address the specific fact situation of\nrepayment within the same year, making them distinguishable from the\npresent controversy.\nITA

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

68 has no application.\n\nRohini Builders, Nimbus (India) Ltd., and Shankar Industries deal with\ndifferent factual scenarios concerning the scope of proof under Section\n68 of the Act, unexplained share capital, or incomplete evidence of\ncreditors. None of them directly address the specific fact situation of\nrepayment within the same year, making them distinguishable from the\npresent controversy

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

86 share capital. Thus even it seen from the applicability of provisions of section 68, the onus of proving

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 115BBE of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “7.0 DECISION 7.1 The grounds of appeal, copy of assessment order, submissions of the appellant, statement of facts

GOLECHAS JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n10/04/2024

sections": [ "68", "115BBE" ], "issues": "Whether the addition of Rs. 25,86,000 under Section 68 of the Income

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)

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 the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal, partner in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) in reply to question No.30 (PB A.Y. 2016-17 pages 73-74) had categorically stated that these papers contain

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)

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 the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal, partner in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) in reply to question No.30 (PB A.Y. 2016-17 pages 73-74) had categorically stated that these papers contain

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)

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 the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal, partner in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) in reply to question No.30 (PB A.Y. 2016-17 pages 73-74) had categorically stated that these papers contain

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)

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 the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal, partner in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) in reply to question No.30 (PB A.Y. 2016-17 pages 73-74) had categorically stated that these papers contain

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)

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 the course of search, Shri Manoj Khandelwal, partner in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) in reply to question No.30 (PB A.Y. 2016-17 pages 73-74) had categorically stated that these papers contain