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

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

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in principle even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the following judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even where the books of accounts were not rejected. Case referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , PAOTA C ROAD vs. J.M. METALS, BASNI

73,000/- by ignoring the fact that the huge cash in hand of Rs. 1,07,77,387/-\nshown by assessee on 31.10.2016 is abnormally high and is not commensurate\nwith the opening cash in hand of Rs.10,46, 141/- on 01.04.2016 and cash in hand\nof Rs.10,72,630/ - on 31.10.2015 in the preceding year. He pleaded that

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.”

73,604—Minor discrepancy in the 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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

73-76 of the Paper book. Further, when the assessee has himself offered income of Rs. 5,86,612/- on this transaction which is accepted by the AO, then the AO again cannot consider the same as the own transaction of the assessee so as to presume hypothetical profit and make addition for the same. Considering the totality of facts

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

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

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

73,93, 10,472+1,72,77,91,273 + 57,56,57,561) 5,04,27,59,306 Net profit @ 10.32% 52 04.12,760 Add: Depreciation disallowed 1,64,006 52,02,48,754 Profit already declared Nil Profit calculated on application of net profit rate 52,02,48,754 12 Varaha Infra Ltd. The profit of Rs.52

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

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

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

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

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

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

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

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

73,92,980/- by making addition of Rs. 68,95,000/- as unexplained cash deposits in bank account u/s 69A of the Act. 3. It was submitted that the assessee only source of income is rental income which was received through banking channel after deduction of TDS and duly disclosed in the return of income. However due to sudden death