SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144 ITR 140. It is evident from\nthese judicial rulings that trade advances or cash received against which goods is\nsupplied subsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section 68.\nIdentification of buyers\nSo far as identification of buyers are concerned, assessee has furnished full detail\nof names and addresses along with their PIN code numbers. (Copy

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. In view of these facts the decisions relied upon by the appellant are not found applicable on the facts of the case. It is argued that once the assessing officer accepts the books of account and the entries in the books of account are matched, there is no case for making the addition

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 Act as the same cannot be\nmade without rejecting the books of account of the assessee\nregularly maintained by the assessee and the said cash deposited is\nduly supported by the entries passed in the books of account and\npart of the sale accepted by the AO.\n2.23.ii. ACIT Central Circle-1 vs. Shri Mahendra

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)

144 of the Act and therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) is in violation of section 251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 42,00,40,000 under section 68

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)

144 of the Act and therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) is in violation of section 251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 42,00,40,000 under section 68