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

7 of the order:\n“The Income-tax Officer found that the appellant's food grains licence at\nNawgachia had been cancelled for the accounting year for its failure to keep\nproper stock accounts and that the appellant was prosecuted under the\nDefence of India Rules but had been acquitted having been given the benefit\nof doubt. The Income

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 /

94,000/- 6 13.11.2016 State Bank of India 511000705632 4,50,000/- 7 15.11.2016 10,00,000/- 8 03.12.2016 1,00,000/- 22.12.2016 6,500/- Total 22,85,500/- Correct total is 22,80,500/- 12 Geeta Devi Agarwal vs. ITO Before the learned AO the assessee has submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 22,80,500/- was deposited

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)

94,000/- 6 13.11.2016 State Bank of India 511000705632 4,50,000/- 7 15.11.2016 10,00,000/- 8 03.12.2016 1,00,000/- 22.12.2016 6,500/- Total 22,85,500/- Correct total is 22,80,500/- 12 Geeta Devi Agarwal vs. ITO Before the learned AO the assessee has submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 22,80,500/- was deposited

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

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)

94. The High Court of Gauhati in Ram Narayan Sah has essentially followed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies. Although the decision of our Court in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust appears to have been cited, the judgment neither enters any reservation nor does it record any reasons which may have assisted us in discerning what

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)

94. The High Court of Gauhati in Ram Narayan Sah has essentially followed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies. Although the decision of our Court in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust appears to have been cited, the judgment neither enters any reservation nor does it record any reasons which may have assisted us in discerning what

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

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

68,281/- when it cannot be ascertained as to when the assessee obtained these PAN nos. from the transporters?” The Assessing Officer made total disallowance of Rs. 1,62,33,061/- by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act because the assessee has not deducted TDS in respect of these payments made to various transporters

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

68,281/- when it cannot be ascertained as to when the assessee obtained these PAN nos. from the transporters?” The Assessing Officer made total disallowance of Rs. 1,62,33,061/- by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act because the assessee has not deducted TDS in respect of these payments made to various transporters

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

68,281/- when it cannot be ascertained as to when the assessee obtained these PAN nos. from the transporters?” The Assessing Officer made total disallowance of Rs. 1,62,33,061/- by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act because the assessee has not deducted TDS in respect of these payments made to various transporters

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

68,281/- when it cannot be ascertained as to when the assessee obtained these PAN nos. from the transporters?” The Assessing Officer made total disallowance of Rs. 1,62,33,061/- by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act because the assessee has not deducted TDS in respect of these payments made to various transporters

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

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

94,179/- on account of cash deposit was not accepted by the AO on the ground that it is nothing but to avoid tax liability by such artificially created income as well as opening balance of cash. The AO has treated the whole amount of cash deposit in the bank account to the tune

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

section 68 of the Act and specifically\nreferring the first proviso reads as under:\n\"The person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also\noffers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited.\"\nIn view of the above, the proviso specifically, made the person accountable and\nincluded

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

section 68 of the Act and specifically\nreferring the first proviso reads as under:\n\"The person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also\noffers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited.\"\nIn view of the above, the proviso specifically, made the person accountable and\nincluded

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

section 68 of the Act and specifically\nreferring the first proviso reads as under:\n\"The person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also\noffers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited.\"\nIn view of the above, the proviso specifically, made the person accountable and\nincluded

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account