DINESH KUMAR JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, BALOTRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.374/Jodh/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12

148 related to purchase from party M/s Nakoda Marble amount to Rs.22,50,543/-. After examination of the information, it reveals that the part is defaulter under I.T.A. No.374/Jodh/2019 3 Assessment Year: 2011-12 VAT Act (Value Added Tax Act). So, the entire purchased was treated as bogus by the ld. AO and added back the @ 12.5% on the disputed

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)

purchased from local vendors who did not issue formal invoices. These transactions were recorded in the regular books and supported by internal vouchers. Considering the possibility that some expenses may not be fully verifiable, the assessee, on a conservative basis, offered additional income in the returns filed under section 148 of the Act on 27.04.2019 for the relevant years. These

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCITL 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)

purchased from local vendors who did not issue formal invoices. These transactions were recorded in the regular books and supported by internal vouchers. Considering the possibility that some expenses may not be fully verifiable, the assessee, on a conservative basis, offered additional income in the returns filed under section 148 of the Act on 27.04.2019 for the relevant years. These

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)

purchased from local vendors who did not issue formal invoices. These transactions were recorded in the regular books and supported by internal vouchers. Considering the possibility that some expenses may not be fully verifiable, the assessee, on a conservative basis, offered additional income in the returns filed under section 148 of the Act on 27.04.2019 for the relevant years. These

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)

purchased from local vendors who did not issue formal invoices. These transactions were recorded in the regular books and supported by internal vouchers. Considering the possibility that some expenses may not be fully verifiable, the assessee, on a conservative basis, offered additional income in the returns filed under section 148 of the Act on 27.04.2019 for the relevant years. These

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

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

purchased from local vendors who did not issue formal invoices. These\ntransactions were recorded in the regular books and supported by internal vouchers.\nConsidering the possibility that some expenses may not be fully verifiable, the assessee,\non a conservative basis, offered additional income in the returns filed under section 148\nof the Act on 27.04.2019 for the relevant years. These

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). An investigation into the assessee's transactions showed purchase and sale of Safal Herbs Ltd. shares, resulting in a calculated capital gain which was not declared in the return.", "held": "The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the amount of Rs. 7,45,080/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and added

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

148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the\nmandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under

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

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

148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the mandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”. Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice under s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such time limit

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the\nmandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under

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

bogus or sham loss claimed. The attempt of AO to compare the balance amount of 1.62 crore with the share trading loss was an example of mere suspicion without any supporting material. Repayment of Rs. 1.62 crores was made through banking channel. The audited accounts were submitted and the AO completely failed to point out any discrepancy or error

BHAGWATI LAL MADRECHA,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-1,, RAJSAMAND

Bench: Hearing.”

purchase of Petrol and Diesel & is a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation. The assessee filed his return of income on 01.10.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 3,20,830/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2015. The AO completed the assessment

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

148." 6. The Ld.DR argued and stated that the entire transactions made by the assessee is bogus and the Investigation Wing of the department has already investigated the issue and treated the transactions as a bogus LTCG. But the Ld.DR was unable to show the assessee's involvement in price rigging or any cash trail in relation to this report