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 132

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

132 of the Act, on perusal of cash book, it was found that cash balance as on 08.11.2016 was at Rs. 61,80,111/- whereas the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank during the period 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. It was further observed that 6113 number of notes of 1000 denomination notes amounting

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

132 of the Act, on perusal of cash book, it was found that cash balance as on 08.11.2016 was at Rs. 61,80,111/- whereas the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank during the period 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. It was further observed that 6113 number of notes of 1000 denomination notes amounting

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

132 of the Act, on perusal of cash book, it was found that cash balance as on 08.11.2016 was at Rs. 61,80,111/- whereas the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank during the period 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. It was further observed that 6113 number of notes of 1000 denomination notes amounting

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

132 of the Act, on perusal of cash book, it was found that cash balance as on 08.11.2016 was at Rs. 61,80,111/- whereas the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank during the period 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. It was further observed that 6113 number of notes of 1000 denomination notes amounting

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

132 of the Act, on perusal of cash book, it was found that cash balance as on 08.11.2016 was at Rs. 61,80,111/- whereas the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank during the period 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. It was further observed that 6113 number of notes of 1000 denomination notes amounting

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

132 of the Act, on perusal of cash book, it was found that cash balance as on 08.11.2016 was at Rs. 61,80,111/- whereas the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank during the period 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. It was further observed that 6113 number of notes of 1000 denomination notes amounting

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

132 of the Act, on perusal of cash book, it was found that cash balance as on 08.11.2016 was at Rs. 61,80,111/- whereas the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank during the period 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. It was further observed that 6113 number of notes of 1000 denomination notes amounting

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

132 of the Act, on perusal of cash book, it was found that cash balance as on 08.11.2016 was at Rs. 61,80,111/- whereas the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank during the period 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. It was further observed that 6113 number of notes of 1000 denomination notes amounting

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

132 of the Act, on perusal of cash book, it was found that cash balance as on 08.11.2016 was at Rs. 61,80,111/- whereas the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank during the period 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. It was further observed that 6113 number of notes of 1000 denomination notes amounting

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

132(1A), Explanation to 132A(1) as inserted by\nthe Finance Act 2017 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962.\n4. Regarding the objection of the appellant against the common warrant of authorisation, in\naddition to the finding in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is submitted that the same is\nexpressly covered by the section 292CC

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

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. 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, 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was\nlaunched on 11.09.2018 in the case of Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah of\nAhmedabad. The 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

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