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

90,93,500/- made by the AO by applying the provisions of Section 68\nof the Act, it is noted

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)

90,93,500/- made by the AO by applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, it is noted

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

90, 91 seized, said advances were renewed from time to time and fixed rate of interest were paid on it which itself proves that the amount taken is not advances taken against agricultural land but cash loan taken on interest through loan broker. (vi) Furthermore, the assessee vide letter dated 16/11/2017 and again by letter dated 18/12/2017 was asked

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

90, 91 seized, said advances were renewed from time to time and fixed rate of interest were paid on it which itself proves that the amount taken is not advances taken against agricultural land but cash loan taken on interest through loan broker. (vi) Furthermore, the assessee vide letter dated 16/11/2017 and again by letter dated 18/12/2017 was asked

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

90, 91 seized, said advances were renewed from time to time and fixed rate of interest were paid on it which itself proves that the amount taken is not advances taken against agricultural land but cash loan taken on interest through loan broker. (vi) Furthermore, the assessee vide letter dated 16/11/2017 and again by letter dated 18/12/2017 was asked

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

90, 91 seized, said advances were renewed from time to time and fixed rate of interest were paid on it which itself proves that the amount taken is not advances taken against agricultural land but cash loan taken on interest through loan broker. (vi) Furthermore, the assessee vide letter dated 16/11/2017 and again by letter dated 18/12/2017 was asked

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)

68 of the Act and thereby assessed as such. A propose this ground the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under : Regarding the addition of Rs.6.45,810, which represents additional income offered by the appellant through revised computation and return, this amount stems from interest income of Rs.11.21.649 as per Form 26AS. According to the appellant

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 /

68 of the Act and thereby assessed as such. A propose this ground the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under : Regarding the addition of Rs.6.45,810, which represents additional income offered by the appellant through revised computation and return, this amount stems from interest income of Rs.11.21.649 as per Form 26AS. According to the appellant

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)

90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals with the information received during search and seizure operations

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)

90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals with the information received during search and seizure operations

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)

68 of the Act in respect of the unsecured loan taken during the year from 53 parties for which the Appellant could not furnish the balance confirmation on the ground that the Appellant had failed to explain the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions of such unsecured loan and further made an addition on account of disallowance

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

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

section 68 and added it\nto income of assessee On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition\nOn revenue's appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs.\n19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of 'D' Ltd. which were converted\ninto drafts and in this manner 'D' Ltd. subscribed to share application of assessee\ncompany

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

90,93,500/- made by the AO by applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, it is noted

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 and added it to income of assessee – On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition – On revenue’s appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs. 19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of ‘D’ Ltd. which were converted into drafts and in this manner ‘D’ Ltd. subscribed to share capital of assessee company

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