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

section 68 as the source of cash deposited during the demonetization 9 Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT period remains unexplained. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2

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

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: 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 that

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: 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 that

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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the act. The appellant in this regard has relied upon various case laws wherein such view is adopted. Since there is no contrary judgment and based on simple interpretation of s. 68, I hold that addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000 is not warranted u/s 68 and hence same is deleted. 9

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the act. The appellant in this regard has relied upon various case laws wherein such view is adopted. Since there is no contrary judgment and based on simple interpretation of s. 68, I hold that addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000 is not warranted u/s 68 and hence same is deleted. 9

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the act. The appellant in this regard has relied upon various case laws wherein such view is adopted. Since there is no contrary judgment and based on simple interpretation of s. 68, I hold that addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000 is not warranted u/s 68 and hence same is deleted. 9

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the act. The appellant in this regard has relied upon various case laws wherein such view is adopted. Since there is no contrary judgment and based on simple interpretation of s. 68, I hold that addition of Rs. 2,75,00,000 is not warranted u/s 68 and hence same is deleted. 9

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

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

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

2,86,27,500/- 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 Id. CIT(A)'s order (supra). The question arises as to whether the Id CIT(A) can make the addition u/s 68 of the Act or not. For this purpose, the definition of Section 68

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

2,86,27,500/- 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 Id. CIT(A)'s order (supra). The question arises as to whether the Id CIT(A) can make the addition u/s 68 of the Act or not. For this purpose, the definition of Section 68

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

9 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur d) Permanent Account Number [PAN] ii. & iv. B For calculation of share price u/s 56(2)(viib) read with rule 11UA(2), following valuation certificates were submitted vide submission dated 13.05.2019 :- S. No. Date of Certificate Name of Valuer 1 18.03.2016 PC Modi & Co., Chartered Accountants 2

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

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

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)

2,97,000 Sale of Old Furniture 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 by treating the exempt LTCG as alleged unexplained cash\ncredit. And also made the addition of Rs.5,76,262/- u/s 69C on account of alleged\nunexplained expenditure @ 6% for obtaining these alleged bogus LTCG.\n\n2.2\nIn first appeal before ld. CIT (A), assessee has filed detailed written\nsubmission and documents. However, the ld. CIT(A) has summarily rejected