ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PAOTA C ROAD vs. HRDK BULLION AND REFINERY PRIVATE LIMITED, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

69,53,808.00 8,01 94 416.00 2016-17 31 03 2016 $5,91,52000 20,72.29.266.00 2017-18 31.03.2017 59.93.791.00 38,37,97.674.00 3. it is noted that the assessee had made a sale of Rs 38,37,97,674/-(P&L account is hereunder reproduced). Trading Account for the year ending Fist March, 2017 PARTICULARS AMOUNT CURRENT YEAR

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

69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56 i.e.\nother sources. It may be worthwhile to mention that when in the Act for every\nadditions, the provisions or section has been provided by the legislature,\notherwise there shall be no meaning of the Act. Hence the addition is wrongly\nmade against the Act . (vide page 21-22 of the order

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

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

69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56 i.e. other sources. It may be worthwhile to mention that when in the Act for every additions, the provisions or section has been provided by the legislature, otherwise there shall be no meaning of the Act. Hence the addition is wrongly made against the Act . (vide page 21-22 of the order

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56 i.e.\nother sources. It may be worthwhile to mention that when in the Act for every\nadditions, the provisions or section has been provided by the legislature,\notherwise there shall be no meaning of the Act. Hence the addition is wrongly\nmade against the Act . (vide page 21-22 of the order

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

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

purchases and\ncorresponding sales made are recorded in the books of the assessee, and no doubts\nwhatsoever have been expressed in this regard by the AO.\nAnother gross mistake committed by the AO is that on one hand he is disbelieving the\nopening balance of debtors of Rs.18 lakhs while on the other hand, he is making an\naddition

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

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

69 A. 4. The assessee company craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing. 3. The ground no. 1 of the appeal has not been pressed by the appellant assessee and accordingly the same is dismissed as not being pressed. 4. In ground no.2, the appellant has challenged the confirmation

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

purchase By Commission Wheat Journal 44 1,00,42,400.00 flour sales To Commission Journal 45 50,212.00 Sanjay Rathi HUF Journal 46 9,85,596 By MUDAT Journal 48 1,83,808.00 1,02,26,208.00 1,02,26,208.00 The whole scenarios show that the fund repaid by the assessee to the above concerns was again received back

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 115BBE of the Act. (xiii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- was received against the revenue receipts of the hospital and argued that the Ld. AO has given no reasonable basis for making this addition, despite all details of such deposits submitted during the assessment proceedings

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 115BBE of the Act. (xiii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- was received against the revenue receipts of the hospital and argued that the Ld. AO has given no reasonable basis for making this addition, despite all details of such deposits submitted during the assessment proceedings

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

section 115BBE of the Act. (xiii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- was received against the revenue receipts of the hospital and argued that the Ld. AO has given no reasonable basis for making this addition, despite all details of such deposits submitted during the assessment proceedings

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 115BBE of the Act. (xiii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- was received against the revenue receipts of the hospital and argued that the Ld. AO has given no reasonable basis for making this addition, despite all details of such deposits submitted during the assessment proceedings

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

section 115BBE of the Act. (xiii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- was received against the revenue receipts of the hospital and argued that the Ld. AO has given no reasonable basis for making this addition, despite all details of such deposits submitted during the assessment proceedings

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

section 115BBE of the Act. (xiii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- was received against the revenue receipts of the hospital and argued that the Ld. AO has given no reasonable basis for making this addition, despite all details of such deposits submitted during the assessment proceedings

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 115BBE of the Act. (xiii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- was received against the revenue receipts of the hospital and argued that the Ld. AO has given no reasonable basis for making this addition, despite all details of such deposits submitted during the assessment proceedings

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 115BBE of the Act. (xiii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- was received against the revenue receipts of the hospital and argued that the Ld. AO has given no reasonable basis for making this addition, despite all details of such deposits submitted during the assessment proceedings