ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in\nprinciple even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the\nfollowing judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even\nwhere the books of accounts were not rejected.\nCase referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in principle even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the following judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even where the books of accounts were not rejected. Case referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

SHRI JITENDRA OJHA ,SIROHI vs. ITO,, SIROHI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Accountant Mrmber Shri Jiterndra Ojha Vs The Ito, S/O Sh. Mangi Lal Ojha , Sirohi. Chhoti Brahmpuri, Sirohi.

seizure, statement of Sh. Madan Mohan Gupta were recorded wherein he had accepted and honoured on- money receipt on sale of plots in Revenue Residency scheme which was Rs. 2000/- per sq. yards as per the seized papers. The name of the assessee was also appearing in the list of such purchasers for aforesaid plots, who alleged had given

SHRI MUKESH CHOUDHARY,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), JODHPUR

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Assessment Year-2009-10

seizure, statement of Sh. Madan Mohan Gupta were recorded wherein he had accepted and honoured on-money receipt on sale of plots in Revenue Residency scheme which was Rs. 3 ITA 573/Jodh/2018 Mukesh Choudhary Vs. ITO 3150/- per sq. feet as per the seized papers. As per the assessment order, the name of the assessee was also appearing

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

seizure and confiscation of such stock in trade has to be allowed as a business loss. The Supreme Court further held that law is different from morality and a case is to be decided by courts on legal principles and not on one's own moral views. Thus this case has no relevance to the facts and circumstances

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

seizure and confiscation of such stock in trade has to be allowed as a business loss. The Supreme Court further held that law is different from morality and a case is to be decided by courts on legal principles and not on one's own moral views. Thus this case has no relevance to the facts and circumstances

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

seizure and confiscation of such stock in trade has to be allowed as a business loss. The Supreme Court further held that law is different from morality and a case is to be decided by courts on legal principles and not on one's own moral views. Thus this case has no relevance to the facts and circumstances

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

seizure and confiscation of such stock in trade has to be allowed as a business loss. The Supreme Court further held that law is different from morality and a case is to be decided by courts on legal principles and not on one's own moral views. Thus this case has no relevance to the facts and circumstances

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

seizure and confiscation of such stock in trade has to be allowed as a business loss. The Supreme Court further held that law is different from morality and a case is to be decided by courts on legal principles and not on one's own moral views. Thus this case has no relevance to the facts and circumstances

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

seizure and confiscation of such stock in trade has to be allowed as a business loss. The Supreme Court further held that law is different from morality and a case is to be decided by courts on legal principles and not on one's own moral views. Thus this case has no relevance to the facts and circumstances

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

seizure and confiscation of such stock in trade has to be allowed as a business loss. The Supreme Court further held that law is different from morality and a case is to be decided by courts on legal principles and not on one's own moral views. Thus this case has no relevance to the facts and circumstances

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

seizure and confiscation of such stock in trade has to be allowed as a business loss. The Supreme Court further held that law is different from morality and a case is to be decided by courts on legal principles and not on one's own moral views. Thus this case has no relevance to the facts and circumstances

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

seizure and confiscation of such stock in trade has to be allowed as a business loss. The Supreme Court further held that law is different from morality and a case is to be decided by courts on legal principles and not on one's own moral views. Thus this case has no relevance to the facts and circumstances

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

search resulted into seizure of unaccounted cash of Rs. 19.37\ncrores (related accommodation entries and commission earned thereon) along with\nincriminating digital as well as documentary evidences. Clandestine record of\nunaccounted cash, synchronized trading, proving bogus LTCG in various BSE\nlisted scrips and transport of such cash through angadiyas was found to be\nmaintained in secret Tally Data file with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. PRAVEEN BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. VINESH KUMAR BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SOHANRAJ BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. KALAWATI DEVI, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent