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

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

69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief of any accommodation entry. (Refer PCIT

PUKHRAJ KUNDANMAL SHAH,JODHPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 69A of the Act representing bank deposits rejecting the explanations and evidences adduced by the appellant on the basis of presumptions and surmises. 19. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 20. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or modify the above grounds of appeal. 3. The crux of the issue challenged

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

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

section 69A of the act and pleaded that the decision of the CIT (A) be upheld. 8. We have heard both the sides and given thoughtful consideration to the factual matrix discussed hereinabove. It is undisputed fact that there is not even a whisper of any defect, error or infirmity pointed out either by the AO or the Ld. Addl

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)

purchase is to sale the plots and earn profit than the profit on sale of the same is chargeable to tax under the head income from business. In this case the intention of the assessee is clear from the fact that the same is regulary shown under the head fixed assets. The various cases relied upon by the assessee also

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

purchases is to\nbe added not substantial part of transaction—When in subsequent assessment year in AY 2011-\n12, AO himself made addition only @ 10% of net profit in assessment order passed under section\n143(3); book profit shown by assessee @ 11.45% for year under consideration was reasonable\nand justified-Therefore, assessee also succeeded on merit-Assssee's appeal allowed

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

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).”\nThe same

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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).”\nThe same

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

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

69A of the I.T. Act under the head Income from Other Sources and accordingly assessee was requested to reply the same online by 04.12.2019.” 6. It was submitted that the allegation of the AO that the assessee had already made the investment in property amounting to Rs. 1,27,20,200/- out of cash withdrawals from bank is factually & legally