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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

132 In the instant case the assessee had not disclosed the transaction of sale of land at Badi for Rs.32,20,000/- in either the return of income or by way of accounts. The transaction came to light only when the AO called for bank accounts u/s 133(6), found a credit of Rs 32,20,000/- and called

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

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

132 and invalid Assessment: 1. The ld. CIT(A) has stated that on going through the provisions of the Act, it can be observed that there is no specific provision in the Act requiring the assessment made under section 153A to be after issue of notice under section 143(2). In support the ld. CIT(A) has referred some judgments

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

132 and invalid Assessment:\n1. The ld. CIT(A) has stated that on going through the provisions of the Act, it can be\nobserved that there is no specific provision in the Act requiring the assessment made\nunder section 153A to be after issue of notice under section 143(2). In support the ld.\nCIT(A) has referred some judgments

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was\nlaunched on 11.09.2018 in the case of Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah of\nAhmedabad. The search resulted into seizure of unaccounted cash of Rs. 19.37\ncrores (related accommodation entries and commission earned thereon) along with\nincriminating digital as well as documentary evidences. Clandestine record of\nunaccounted cash, synchronized trading, proving bogus LTCG

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

132 and invalid Assessment:\n1. The ld. CIT(A) has stated that on going through the provisions of the Act, it can be\nobserved that there is no specific provision in the Act requiring the assessment made\nunder section 153A to be after issue of notice under section 143(2). In support the ld.\nCIT(A) has referred some judgments

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

132 and invalid Assessment:\n1. The ld. CIT(A) has stated that on going through the provisions of the Act, it can be\nobserved that there is no specific provision in the Act requiring the assessment made\nunder section 153A to be after issue of notice under section 143(2). In support the ld.\nCIT(A) has referred some judgments

UMMAID MAL SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

Accordingly, legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Ummaid Mal Singhvi, Acit, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Vs Central Circle-2, 106 Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th Jodhpur B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Abpps7429D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur Dated 30Th September, 2019 For Assessment Year 2008-09 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aaa Of The Income Tax Act Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Ummaid Mal Singhvi

capital gain declared by the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 50C. The imposition of penalty on addition of 1,42,000/- is erroneous as: a) The finding recorded by the Ld. AO that the Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the addition of 142000/- is patently erroneous as the Hon'ble Tribunal only confirmed the direction

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)

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 to the centralisation of cases

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)

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 to the centralisation of cases

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)

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 to the centralisation of cases

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)

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 to the centralisation of cases

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

132(4) of\nthe Income-tax Act enables the authorised officer to examine a person on oath\nand any statement made by such person during such examination can also be\nused in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever\nstatement is recorded under section 133A of the Income-tax Act it is not given\nany evidentiary

PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

132(4) in question no. 13,14 and 15 have\naccepted that he has received on money on the sale made in the\nAdeshwar Nagar Scheme. The document as recovered from the seller\nshows that the assessee has paid on money in respect of purchase of the\nsaid plot/ land. However, no enquiry has been conducted