SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

deposited, has been found to be false, it would be a remote and far-fetched conclusion to hold, that the money belongs to the assessee, and that, he would in such a case had any direct nexus between the facts and conclusions found therefrom. In our view, since Mangilal Agarwal's case (supra) is the judgment of this Court

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

deposited, has been found to be false, it would be a remote and far-fetched conclusion to hold, that the money belongs to the assessee, and that, he would in such a case had any direct nexus between the facts and conclusions found therefrom. In our view, since Mangilal Agarwal's case (supra) is the judgment of this Court

PARKASH SINWAL,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, WARD, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

capital gains. o The land under consideration was also an agricultural land outside the stipulated threshold and therefore, gains arising from the sale of said land were exempt in the hands of the Appellant and not disclosed as taxable income in the Return of Income of the Appellant. o The sale proceeds of said property were duly deposited

SHYAM SUNDAR INANI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD, PHALODI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

cash deposits during the demonetisation period; 2. Addition of Rs.30,25,000/- in respect of a bank account allegedly not belonging to the assessee; 3. Disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A; 4. Estimation of income without rejection of books of account; and 5. Denial of cost of construction in computation of long-term capital gain

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

deposit in bank is the sale consideration received through banking channel and not bash cash and has direct nexus with the sale of land. The fact that the appellant has not shown the same in the books of account and whether it attracts the tax any liability is a separate matter to be decided

AMRINDER SINGH JOSAN,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 492/Jodh/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

deposit of cash in bank account amount of Rs.5 lac u/s 68 and the capital gain for sale of land

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

capital gain or u/s 48, 56\nor u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the\nlaw and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any\nprovision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When in the law\nand

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

capital gain or u/s 48, 56\nor u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the\nlaw and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any\nprovision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When in the law\nand

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

capital gain or u/s 48, 56\nor u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the\nlaw and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any\nprovision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When in the law\nand

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

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

capital gain or u/s 48, 56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the law and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any provision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Deposit a/c already existing in Debit side. Advance for 3,49,17,898 1. Details was submitted with reply Dumper, Vehicle dated 17.06.2016. (WIPL) 2. Copy of Ledger account from M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2017 in support of Assets sold is enclosed. 3. As per which it is clear that Advances

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

cash for which proper details has not been either maintained or filed during the course of the assessment proceedings. The assessee had also not maintained site-wise stock register of consumable goods debited under the head operating expenditure (directly attributable site) at Rs. 21,76,39,197/- and for material purchased for road construction Rs.2