M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

9 M/s Rambhajo’s vs. ACIT in law in as much as no opportunity to be heard has been provided by the Ld. AO before imposition of the penalty as the notice itself is vague. 11. It was submitted that Ld. AO has not recorded his satisfaction in the assessment order as to under what circumstances or manner the provisions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. 6. We also note that the provisions of section 68 cannot be appliedin relation to\nthe sales receipt shown by the assessee in its books ofaccounts. It is because the\nsales receipt has already been shown in thebooks of accounts as income at the\ntime of sale only.\n9. 7. We are also aware of the fact that

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held\r\nthat a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or\r\n139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted\r\nupon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further\r\nproceedings in relation

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,040/-. Hence, the pleading on the ground of equity also fails. 5.7 Thus though surrender was during the search in course of statements u/s 132(4), the disclosure u/s 132(4), by itself cannot redeem the appellant from deeming provisions of the explanation 5A to section 271(1)( c) of the Act. Factually speaking the statement

TRANSINDIA NONWOVENS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

1)(a)(ii) for Rs. 2,68,900/- by disallowing PF and other contribution paid after due date prescribed by respective labour laws, out of sum collected from employees contribution to PF/ESIC etc. The assessee has stated that disallowance of Rs. 2,68,900/-was not in accordance with the provision of Section

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 /

9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Ground no. 1 & 2 being general does not require any finding. Vide Ground no. 3 the assessee challenges the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,85,000/- being the amount deposited in cash in the bank account under section

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)

9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Ground no. 1 & 2 being general does not require any finding. Vide Ground no. 3 the assessee challenges the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,85,000/- being the amount deposited in cash in the bank account under section

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

9,01,270/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The A.O. passed the assessment order U/s 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 24/12/2016 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,18,99,110/- by making addition U/s 41(1) and 68

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)

9. Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the finding recorded in the order of the lower authority. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee he challenges the addition of Rs. 6,26,88,011/- under section 68

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)

9. Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the finding recorded in the order of the lower authority. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee he challenges the addition of Rs. 6,26,88,011/- under section 68

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

68,088/- being\ndisallowances out of certain expenses claimed. The assessee firm filed an\nappeal against the said order. Thereafter Ld. A.O. issued a notice u/s 154 dated\n10-7-2017 on the ground that assessee was allowed set off of brought forward\nunabsorbed depreciation of Rs.21,13,949/- of A.Y. 2001-02 & earlier years which\nwas irregular

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

9 Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT period remains unexplained. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,64,00,000/- made by the AO is upheld u/s 68 of the Act as the source of the cash deposited in the bank account remain unexplained. In view of the above findings, the argument of the appellant that section

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO 10.1 In support of its ground of appeal, the appellant submitted before me vide submission dated 13.02.2024 that the unabsorbed depreciation is entitled to be set off against income of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- added u/s. 68 and only balance of Rs. 88,40,720/- liable to be taxed u/s 115BBE

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

1,20,12,101 on 08.11.2016\nas advances which resulted in increase in cash balance of the assessee. It is\nsubmitted that on the eve of sudden announcement of demonetization i.e.,\n08.11.2016, there was huge rush for buying of gold. The assessee took the\nsame as business opportunity and took advances for selling the gold bars. The\nassessee made

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

9,50,000 Sale of Paintings 1,85,800 Total Cash receipts 19,83,800 On perusal of aforesaid table it is evident that enough cash in hand available with him which was required to be deposited in bank account due to sudden demonetization by Government. Assessee further in support of his claim also furnished copies of Expense ledgers, Sales

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)

section 68 when the assessee fails to explain the source satisfactorily. Since the addition is upheld, the penalty proceeding is valid and tenable in law. Thus, on the basis of above discussion grounds of appeal 1 to 9

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

1 April 2018 that where such donations are made with specific directions to form part of corpus of the recipient entity, it will not be considered as application of income in the hands of the donor entity. However, the donations with no specific directions to the recipient entity continue to be eligible as application of income. 48. In the instant