RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

131/- was made on account of additional depreciation claimed. 2.2 Despite the fact that the income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

131/- was made on account of additional depreciation claimed. 2.2 Despite the fact that the income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

131/- was made on account of additional depreciation claimed. 2.2 Despite the fact that the income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

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

131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) to verify the purchase of finished fabric and called for certain details reproduced at page 4 of the order. The AO observed that assessee produced incomplete books. Further assessee did not produce any other details regarding purchase of finished fabrics such as quantitative details or daily stock register

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

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

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

131 or 133(6), which have not been used by the lower authorities, hence the observations of the ld. CIT(A) is wrong and incorrect and liable to be ignored. 2.3 The ld. CIT(A) stated that the argument of the appellant is that unbilled sale is the difference because of following percentage completion method as per accounting standard

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

131 was recorded of Sh. Vipin Kumar, one of the partners of firm in which he was unable to give any satisfactory evidence and mode of transaction being carried out. 7. On the contrary, the ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and has also relied

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

131 or 133(6), which have not been used by the lower authorities, hence the observations of the ld. CIT(A) is wrong and incorrect and liable to be ignored. 2.3 The ld. CIT(A) stated that the argument of the appellant is that unbilled sale is the difference because of following percentage completion method as per accounting standard

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.

section, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that " ............... Since the ld. AO had not proceeded as per the mandatory provision of law, hence the ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the impugned asst. order. The same may kindly be cancelled and quashed. Such action and decision ought to have been sue-moto taken

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the act and and added to the income of the assessee. In addition to the cash-credits, the AO has further made addition of Rs. 8,56,000/- u/s 69A of the by treating the deposit in the name of Sh. Mohan Ram Choudhary and Smt.Tulchi Devi