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

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

bogus. In our considered view, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar Jajoo (supra) and the decisions of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal cited (supra). Respectfully following the said precedents, we hold that the orders of the revenue authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition made under sections

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

13 14 5. Against this assessee has filed appeal before the Honble CIT(A). The assessee has filed WS and details by stating that During the course of assessment proceedings, I have filed the Form 27C duly signed by the purchaser and which clearly mentions that purchase was done for further manufacturing of other products. In section 206C

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

13 14 5. Against this assessee has filed appeal before the Honble CIT(A). The assessee has filed WS and details by stating that During the course of assessment proceedings, I have filed the Form 27C duly signed by the purchaser and which clearly mentions that purchase was done for further manufacturing of other products. In section 206C

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

13 14 5. Against this assessee has filed appeal before the Honble CIT(A). The assessee has filed WS and details by stating that During the course of assessment proceedings, I have filed the Form 27C duly signed by the purchaser and which clearly mentions that purchase was done for further manufacturing of other products. In section 206C

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

purchases is to\nbe added not substantial part of transaction—When in subsequent assessment year in AY 2011-\n12, AO himself made addition only @ 10% of net profit in assessment order passed under section\n143(3); book profit shown by assessee @ 11.45% for year under consideration was reasonable\nand justified-Therefore, assessee also succeeded on merit-Assssee's appeal allowed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

13. The ground no. 3 raised by the revenue in ITA No. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 is common for alleged addition on account of suppression of receipt of X-ray for an amount of Rs. 33,02,385/-. The fact related to this ground as emerges from the assessment order for A. Y. 2016-17 in ITA No. 167/Jodh/2022 is that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

13. The ground no. 3 raised by the revenue in ITA No. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 is common for alleged addition on account of suppression of receipt of X-ray for an amount of Rs. 33,02,385/-. The fact related to this ground as emerges from the assessment order for A. Y. 2016-17 in ITA No. 167/Jodh/2022 is that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

13. The ground no. 3 raised by the revenue in ITA No. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 is common for alleged addition on account of suppression of receipt of X-ray for an amount of Rs. 33,02,385/-. The fact related to this ground as emerges from the assessment order for A. Y. 2016-17 in ITA No. 167/Jodh/2022 is that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

13. The ground no. 3 raised by the revenue in ITA No. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 is common for alleged addition on account of suppression of receipt of X-ray for an amount of Rs. 33,02,385/-. The fact related to this ground as emerges from the assessment order for A. Y. 2016-17 in ITA No. 167/Jodh/2022 is that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

13. The ground no. 3 raised by the revenue in ITA No. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 is common for alleged addition on account of suppression of receipt of X-ray for an amount of Rs. 33,02,385/-. The fact related to this ground as emerges from the assessment order for A. Y. 2016-17 in ITA No. 167/Jodh/2022 is that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

13. The ground no. 3 raised by the revenue in ITA No. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 is common for alleged addition on account of suppression of receipt of X-ray for an amount of Rs. 33,02,385/-. The fact related to this ground as emerges from the assessment order for A. Y. 2016-17 in ITA No. 167/Jodh/2022 is that

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

13. The ground no. 3 raised by the revenue in ITA No. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 is common for alleged addition on account of suppression of receipt of X-ray for an amount of Rs. 33,02,385/-. The fact related to this ground as emerges from the assessment order for A. Y. 2016-17 in ITA No. 167/Jodh/2022 is that

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

13. The ground no. 3 raised by the revenue in ITA No. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 is common for alleged addition on account of suppression of receipt of X-ray for an amount of Rs. 33,02,385/-. The fact related to this ground as emerges from the assessment order for A. Y. 2016-17 in ITA No. 167/Jodh/2022 is that

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

13. The ground no. 3 raised by the revenue in ITA No. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 is common for alleged addition on account of suppression of receipt of X-ray for an amount of Rs. 33,02,385/-. The fact related to this ground as emerges from the assessment order for A. Y. 2016-17 in ITA No. 167/Jodh/2022 is that

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 2(13) of the IT Act which reads as under: "Business" includes any trading, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture." The above definition has used the words 'trade' 'commerce' or 'manufacture' or "any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture". The Hon'ble Gujarat High

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 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