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

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

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

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

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

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

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

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

purchased flats from the company but\nthe transactions mentioned in this ledger accounts were not executed with the company.\nThis is again avoiding tactics even when the assessee company has been caught with the\nevidences of cash transaction. There is cash transaction as recorded on these documents\nwith the flat purchasers, which is proved from these documents. The assessee company

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.”

purchase vouchers of goods transferred from OME has been explained by the assessee and a detailed note in the form of explanation has been filed—Likewise partner N has filed his returns year after year—His statement of account shows that he was having capital balance of Rs. 4,02,217 as on 31st March, 2006 which far exceeds