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)

section 68 cannot be applied to the income which is already recorded in the books of account and the source of receipt is explained out of the stock already available with the assessee. To support these contentions the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following case laws : 30 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur

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

section 68 of the Income\nTax Act and therefore in the assessment completed addition of Rs. 1,73,56,000/-\nis made.\n3.4.12 Accordingly, the A.O. referred to provision u/s 68 of the I. T. Act and also\nrelied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Durga\nPrasad More

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

96), sale statement supported by invoices (PB 97-164), sale agreement with Sohrab of safeda trees (PB 165-168) and the affidavit of family members as to the belonginess of the agricultural income to the assessee (PB 169-174). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored all these evidences before holding that assessee failed to prove the agricultural income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

96), sale statement supported by invoices (PB 97-164), sale agreement with Sohrab of safeda trees (PB 165-168) and the affidavit of family members as to the belonginess of the agricultural income to the assessee (PB 169-174). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored all these evidences before holding that assessee failed to prove the agricultural income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

96), sale statement supported by invoices (PB 97-164), sale agreement with Sohrab of safeda trees (PB 165-168) and the affidavit of family members as to the belonginess of the agricultural income to the assessee (PB 169-174). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored all these evidences before holding that assessee failed to prove the agricultural income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

96), sale statement supported by invoices (PB 97-164), sale agreement with Sohrab of safeda trees (PB 165-168) and the affidavit of family members as to the belonginess of the agricultural income to the assessee (PB 169-174). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored all these evidences before holding that assessee failed to prove the agricultural income

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)

68 to 69D has applied Section 115 BBE, which is incorrect as per the relevant scheme. 2.3. Ld. CIT(A) at Page 13 of her order has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd, ITA No. 157/JP/2017, for the proposition that the amendment brought about in Section

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)

68 to 69D has applied Section 115 BBE, which is incorrect as per the relevant scheme. 2.3. Ld. CIT(A) at Page 13 of her order has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd, ITA No. 157/JP/2017, for the proposition that the amendment brought about in Section

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)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the AO. 6.12 Now, the appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted as under: 17. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 9 May 2023 (PB 96

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)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the AO. 6.12 Now, the appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted as under: 17. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 9 May 2023 (PB 96

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

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

96 taxmann.com 255 (SC) Konark Structural Engineers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT\n“Assessee-company was carrying on business as builders and developers – During relevant\nyear, assessee received certain amount as share capital from different parties - Assessing\nOfficer taking a view that assessee failed to prove identity and creditworthiness of\nshareholders, added amount in question to assessee's income under 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

96 taxmann.com 255 (SC) Konark Structural Engineers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT\n“Assessee-company was carrying on business as builders and developers – During relevant\nyear, assessee received certain amount as share capital from different parties - Assessing\nOfficer taking a view that assessee failed to prove identity and creditworthiness of\nshareholders, added amount in question to assessee's income under 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

96 taxmann.com 255 (SC) Konark Structural Engineers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT\n“Assessee-company was carrying on business as builders and developers – During relevant\nyear, assessee received certain amount as share capital from different parties - Assessing\nOfficer taking a view that assessee failed to prove identity and creditworthiness of\nshareholders, added amount in question to assessee's income under section

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(2) of Income Tax Act 1961 was issued on 09-08-2018. The assessee deposited Rs. 1,41,32,000/- in demonetized currency during the demonetization period 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. The AO made the addition of Rs. 1,41,32,000/- and the assessment of the assessee was completed by AO vide her order dated

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)

68,920/- made by ld.AO on account of unrecorded sales computed on the basis of loose papers found, and thus addition was restricted to Rs.26,031/-. A.Y. 2016-17: - GP rate of 9.06% was applied as against 7.93% declared by assessee. Accordingly, Trading Addition was restricted to Rs.8,12,514/-. - Addition of Rs.2,72,61,475/- made by ld.AO

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)

68,920/- made by ld.AO on account of unrecorded sales computed on the basis of loose papers found, and thus addition was restricted to Rs.26,031/-. A.Y. 2016-17: - GP rate of 9.06% was applied as against 7.93% declared by assessee. Accordingly, Trading Addition was restricted to Rs.8,12,514/-. - Addition of Rs.2,72,61,475/- made by ld.AO

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)

68,920/- made by ld.AO on account of unrecorded sales computed on the basis of loose papers found, and thus addition was restricted to Rs.26,031/-. A.Y. 2016-17: - GP rate of 9.06% was applied as against 7.93% declared by assessee. Accordingly, Trading Addition was restricted to Rs.8,12,514/-. - Addition of Rs.2,72,61,475/- made by ld.AO