ITO, WARD-2, HANUMANGARH vs. SMT. LALITA SARAF , HANUMANGARH TOWN

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed and the Cross objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainithe Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Lalita Saraf, Ward-2, Hanumangarh C/O Mangi Lal Saraf, In Front Of Mandi Studio, Hanumangarh Town

undisclosed foreign assets/ bank accounts. 11. The monetary limits specified in para 3 above shall not apply to writ matters and Direct tax matters other than Income tax. Filing of appeals in other Direct tax matters shall continue to be governed by relevant provisions of statute and rules. Further, in cases where the tax effect is not quantifiable

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

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

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

undisclosed business income on estimate basis. However while making the additionshe has not invoked or applied any provisions of law while making the addition. The ld. AO has not stated under what provision of law he has made the addition and under what head whether, under business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

undisclosed\nbusiness income on estimate basis. However while making the additionshe has not\ninvoked or applied any provisions of law while making the addition. The ld. AO has not\nstated under what provision of law he has made the addition and under what head\nwhether, under business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain

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

undisclosed\nbusiness income on estimate basis. However while making the additionshe has not\ninvoked or applied any provisions of law while making the addition. The ld. AO has not\nstated under what provision of law he has made the addition and under what head\nwhether, under business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

purchase and sale of shares are arranged transactions merely giving a\ncolour of authenticity by creating a façade of transactions to create bogus profit in the\ngarb of LTCG by well-organized network of entry providers with the sale motive to sell\nsuch entries to enable the beneficiary to account for the undisclosed income

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

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

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

purchased the house and cash withdrawn are used for same which is not only incorrect but also contrary to facts on record. There was no distant connection 8 Smt. Krishna Agarwal vs. ITO with the material on record and observation made by him in the order. In other words the addition so made in a incorrect and false way putting

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

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

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

bogus debtors/sales without bringing evidence\non record, when assessee had filed copy of ledger accounts of the debtors, Sales &\nPurchase details like Sales Register, Purchase Register, Sales and Purchase\nInvoices and the AO had not made any further enquiry.\n3. When cash deposited is reflected as realization from debtors in books of accounts\nand if the AO has not rejected

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

bogus and why it should not be treated as cash credit u/s 68 of IT Act, 1961 representing undisclosed income. He was also asked to explain as to why commission @ 6% of the LTCG, which is found to be typical of the transactions of providing arranged capital gains, should not be added u/s 69C of IT Act, 1961. The assessee

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. 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 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, 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

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

undisclosed sales." This view is fully supported by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. President Industries reported in 225 ITR Page 47 and also by various other courts. (ix) It is also well settled position of law that tax can be levied only on the net income/profits and not on gross receipts for which

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

undisclosed sales." This view is fully supported by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. President Industries reported in 225 ITR Page 47 and also by various other courts. (ix) It is also well settled position of law that tax can be levied only on the net income/profits and not on gross receipts for which

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

undisclosed sales." This view is fully supported by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. President Industries reported in 225 ITR Page 47 and also by various other courts. (ix) It is also well settled position of law that tax can be levied only on the net income/profits and not on gross receipts for which