DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

viia) of the Act to the declared income of the appellant. The assessee objected to the proposed addition on the ground that during the search no incriminating material indicating any undisclosed income for the year under consideration was found, which is also apparently clear from the assessment order itself. Further it was contended since there is no incriminating material found

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,VIDYUT BHAWAN, JAN PATH, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, , JAIPUR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings ,the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dt.03.10.2019requiring the assessee to justify the write-off of Rs.200 crore due from Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited in its books of account as bad debts. He further required the assessee to provide proof of including this amount in computing the income for earlier years.In response to same, assessee filed

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

reassessment, which was made prior to resorting to this rectification—This disallowance could not be made while acting u/s 154 reason being this was not prima facie mistake it was a highly debatable issue—Held, it was clear from above that deletion of Rs.67,33,445 allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) could not be said to have been

BARODA RAJASTHAN KHESTRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

viia) read with Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (e) As per CBDT Instruction No. 17/2008, it has been clearly laid down that provision of standard asset is a contingent liability and a contingent liability cannot constitute deductible expenditure for the propose of Income Tax Act (f) Further, perusal of assessment records reveals that you have claimed Rs.137.05

RADHEY RAM GODARA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

viia) Further, the appellant has not produced any evidence which may prove the creditworthiness of Shri Mahaveer Prasad. It has been held in a number of cases by the Judicial Authorities that transactions through banking channels are not sacrosanct. Therefore, looking to the 15 Shri Radhey Ram Godara vs ITO, Ward- 3(5), Jaipur total facts and circumstances