ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAMARPAN SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. , BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Samarpan Synthetics Pvt. Circle, Ltd., Bhilwara 54, Bhilwara Textiles Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara-311001, Rahasthan. Pan No. Aahcs 4365 G

bogus entities and never produced complete details and books of accounts before the AO while deleting addition of Rs.7,82,95,551/-. Ld. DR also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had also erred in accepting the verbal contention of the assessee that purchase of Rs.10,00,68,034/- were bifurcated in the name of seven parties to obtain loan

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

10(2) Agri./Group-2/75 dt. 27.10.2014 of State of Rajasthan is taken as the base for the meaning of forest produce. Vide page 3-6 of the assessment order. 4. The ld. AO has stated that during the F.Y. 2010-11 assessee has made sale of forest produce “Phuwar” of Rs.8,51,806/-, which come in the meaning of forest

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

10(2) Agri./Group-2/75 dt. 27.10.2014 of State of Rajasthan is taken as the base for the meaning of forest produce. Vide page 3-6 of the assessment order. 4. The ld. AO has stated that during the F.Y. 2010-11 assessee has made sale of forest produce “Phuwar” of Rs.8,51,806/-, which come in the meaning of forest

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

10(2) Agri./Group-2/75 dt. 27.10.2014 of State of Rajasthan is taken as the base for the meaning of forest produce. Vide page 3-6 of the assessment order. 4. The ld. AO has stated that during the F.Y. 2010-11 assessee has made sale of forest produce “Phuwar” of Rs.8,51,806/-, which come in the meaning of forest

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO's order dated 28.12.2017 passed for the AY 2014-15 u/s 153A r.w.s

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10. The ground of appeal no. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 144/Jodh/2022 are similar to the ground no. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 143/Jod/2022. The bench does not feel imperative to repeat the related facts, grounds, and findings on the similar grounds in this appeal

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

10. The ground of appeal no. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 144/Jodh/2022 are similar to the ground no. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 143/Jod/2022. The bench does not feel imperative to repeat the related facts, grounds, and findings on the similar grounds in this appeal

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

10. The ground of appeal no. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 144/Jodh/2022 are similar to the ground no. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 143/Jod/2022. The bench does not feel imperative to repeat the related facts, grounds, and findings on the similar grounds in this appeal

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10. The ground of appeal no. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 144/Jodh/2022 are similar to the ground no. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 143/Jod/2022. The bench does not feel imperative to repeat the related facts, grounds, and findings on the similar grounds in this appeal

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10. The ground of appeal no. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 144/Jodh/2022 are similar to the ground no. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 143/Jod/2022. The bench does not feel imperative to repeat the related facts, grounds, and findings on the similar grounds in this appeal

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10. The ground of appeal no. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 144/Jodh/2022 are similar to the ground no. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 143/Jod/2022. The bench does not feel imperative to repeat the related facts, grounds, and findings on the similar grounds in this appeal

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10. The ground of appeal no. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 144/Jodh/2022 are similar to the ground no. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 143/Jod/2022. The bench does not feel imperative to repeat the related facts, grounds, and findings on the similar grounds in this appeal

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

10. The ground of appeal no. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 144/Jodh/2022 are similar to the ground no. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 143/Jod/2022. The bench does not feel imperative to repeat the related facts, grounds, and findings on the similar grounds in this appeal

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10. The ground of appeal no. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 144/Jodh/2022 are similar to the ground no. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 143/Jod/2022. The bench does not feel imperative to repeat the related facts, grounds, and findings on the similar grounds in this appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

purchase By Commission Wheat Journal 44 1,00,42,400.00 flour sales To Commission Journal 45 50,212.00 Sanjay Rathi HUF Journal 46 9,85,596 By MUDAT Journal 48 1,83,808.00 1,02,26,208.00 1,02,26,208.00 The whole scenarios show that the fund repaid by the assessee to the above concerns was again received back

ITO, WARD-2, HANUMANGARH vs. SMT. LALITA SARAF , HANUMANGARH TOWN

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed and the Cross objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainithe Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Lalita Saraf, Ward-2, Hanumangarh C/O Mangi Lal Saraf, In Front Of Mandi Studio, Hanumangarh Town

10. In the Cross objection No. 10/Jodh/2019, filed by the assessee, following grounds have been raised:- The Ld. Pr. CIT was not competent to authorize 1) filing of 2nd appeal before ITAT as the tax effect involved is less than 20 lakhs. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

10,190 – Rs. 36,65,110). The assessee has not shown LTCG in her ITR for the AY 2013-14, accordingly, the AO held that amount of Rs. 7,45,080/- is liable to be brought for taxation. In view of the above, the AO observing that provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable

ITO, WARD, PHALODI, PHALODI vs. M/S RAMA ALLURE LLP, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Bogus. The AO has arbitrarily without making any inquiry has doubted the identity of the Dubai Bank accounts & declared as ‘Undisclosed’. Also, the Ld. AO without assigning any strong reason or document evidence the audited financial statements of Aptus Trading DMCC and simply declared the funds provided by Mr. Arpit to Mr. Suresh as not explained. 9. It would