ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI CHANDRA SURANA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Auditor. Any Stock Register Whatsoever Was Not Furnished During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings To Verify The Quantitative Sale Made During The Year Whether The Item Shown By The Assessee As Sold Was Actually In Stock Of The Assessee Or Not & Quantity & Value Of The Sale Shown Remains Unverified. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Ignoring The Vital Fact.

transfer or receive any specified bank note." (b) Section 2 (1) (a) in Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 provides that "appointed day" means the 31" day of December, 2016. (c) Further Section 3 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 states that "On and from the appointed day, notwithstanding anything contained in the Reserve Bank

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

price ultimately credited to profit & loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added uls 68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) Ihat "t is for the assessee to prove

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)

demonetization of currency - AO culled out, the deposits that was made of bank notes that were declared as not legal tender owing to demonetization of currency - HELD THAT: - Both AO and CIT(A) accepted the fact that the cash receipts are nothing but sale proceeds in the business of the assessee. Addition has been made only on the basis that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the\ncross objection of the assessee are allowed

price ultimately credited to profit & loss\naccount) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also\nbeen added u/s 68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR\n194(SC) that \"It is for the assessee to prove

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

price of jewellery depends on rate of gold on particular date which fluctuates day to day and no businessman will made credit sale to unknown person and incurred loss due to fluctuation in the rate of gold. j) In the telephonic verification of the debtors on random base it is found that they denied to recognized any such purchase

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

prices of gold were doubling or tripling after the next day or the jewellery would not have been available on the next day. The rush was at the Jewellers apparently due to the reason that some people wanted to buy jewellery in cash using the demonetised currency which they could not have deposited in the bank account as that

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realisation of excess over the cost incurred that only forms part of the profit included in the consideration of sales. (4) Manmohan Sadhani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 304 ITR 0052 – Hon’ble M.P. HighCourt In this

ST. WILFRED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

demonetized bank notes could be deposited with Banks over a period of 50 days until 30.12.2016. The search on the Bank was carried out on 11.12.2016 much before the window of 50 days provided by the RBI was over. Hence, in these 50 days, both demonetised notes as well as fresh notes were being accepted by Banks. Banks were also

ST. WILFRED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

demonetized bank notes could be deposited with Banks over a period of 50 days until 30.12.2016. The search on the Bank was carried out on 11.12.2016 much before the window of 50 days provided by the RBI was over. Hence, in these 50 days, both demonetised notes as well as fresh notes were being accepted by Banks. Banks were also

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)

transfer of gold to the karigars and the receipt of jewellery from them is enclosed herewith at APB 87-90. Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the submissions and the factual position as emanating from records has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.65,72,125/-. Hon’ble bench is requested to kindly uphold the order of ld.CIT(A) in this

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)

transfer of gold to the karigars and the receipt of jewellery from them is enclosed herewith at APB 87-90. Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the submissions and the factual position as emanating from records has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.65,72,125/-. Hon’ble bench is requested to kindly uphold the order of ld.CIT(A) in this

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)

transfer of gold to the karigars and the receipt of jewellery from them is enclosed herewith at APB 87-90. Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the submissions and the factual position as emanating from records has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.65,72,125/-. Hon’ble bench is requested to kindly uphold the order of ld.CIT(A) in this

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)

transfer of gold to the karigars and the receipt of jewellery from them is enclosed herewith at APB 87-90. Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the submissions and the factual position as emanating from records has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.65,72,125/-. Hon’ble bench is requested to kindly uphold the order of ld.CIT(A) in this

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)

transfer of gold to the karigars and the receipt of jewellery from them is enclosed herewith at APB 87-90. Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the submissions and the factual position as emanating from records has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.65,72,125/-. Hon’ble bench is requested to kindly uphold the order of ld.CIT(A) in this

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)

transfer of gold to the karigars and the receipt of jewellery from them is enclosed herewith at APB 87-90. Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the submissions and the factual position as emanating from records has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.65,72,125/-. Hon’ble bench is requested to kindly uphold the order of ld.CIT(A) in this

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

demonetization period. (iv) TheHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 has observed as under: "The case involving the encashment of high denomination notes are quite numerous. In some of them, the explanation tendered by the taxpayer has been accepted, and in some, it has been rejected. The manner in which evidence

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

demonetized currency at Rs.50,00,000 in to HDFC bank account No. 50200002190263 during the period of 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. During the course of assessment the appellant was asked to give source of this cash deposit into bank account. The appellant replied vide letter dated 20.09.2019 that the appellant had disclosed unexplained investment in form of sundry debtors at Rs.2

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

demonetization period.\n(iv) TheHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49\nITR 112 has observed as under:\n\"The case involving the encashment of high denomination notes are quite\nnumerous. In some of them, the explanation tendered by the taxpayer has been\naccepted, and in some, it has been rejected. The manner