ITO, WARD-3, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. SHRI BADRI PRASAD, SRIGANGANAGAR

145/- Capital Gain Nil The assessee was asked to file evidence regarding sale, transfer expenses, exemption claimed u/s. 54B. In response the assessee filed two agreements for purchase of different lands in support of claim of exemption u/s. 54B. The details of these purchases submitted is reiterated here in below: S. No. Details of Seller Purchaser Date Amount as Mode

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)

capital gain. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the trading of agricultural commodities like jeera and other seeds. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account aggregating Rs.1,11,25,000/- during the demonetisation period. The assessee explained that the cash was part of regular

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 145 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). Now we turn to the application of the profit rate. There is no dispute about the fact that the profit rate declared by the assessee in the instant case is better than all the preceding years be it GP or NP rate. The Coordinate Jodhpur Bench

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 145 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). Now we turn to the application of the profit rate. There is no dispute about the fact that the profit rate declared by the assessee in the instant case is better than all the preceding years be it GP or NP rate. The Coordinate Jodhpur Bench

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

capital gain, he cannot simply dispute the\nfact that the assessee did file the return. Importantly, even the second factual assertion of\nthe Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded is totally incorrect. He has referred to said\nsum of Rs. 1,18,95,000/- as a sale price of the property. The assessee had produced\nbefore the Assessing Officer

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

capital gains, application of share money or introducing money as gift rather all the purchases and sales were vouched and the accounts were supported by the stock register. Thus, there was no case for invoking the provisions of section 145

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

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

145(3) and without rejecting the books of accounts on assumption and presumption without any material evidence, without cross examination or inquiry from purchasers, also erred in not considering the material and details in their true perspective and sense despite available on record. Also erred in making the addition without invoking any provision of the Act/law. Hence the addition

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

145(3) and without rejecting thebooks of accounts on assumption and presumption\nwithout any material evidence, without cross examination or inquiry from purchasers,\nalso erred in not considering the material and details in their true perspective and sense\ndespite available on record. Also erred in making the addition without invoking any\nprovision of the Act/law. Hence the addition so made

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

145(3) and without rejecting thebooks of accounts on assumption and presumption\nwithout any material evidence,without cross examination or inquiry from purchasers also\nerred in not considering the material and details in their true perspective and sense despite\navailable on record. Also erred in making the addition without invoking any\nprovision of the Act/law. Hence the addition so made

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

145(3) and without rejecting thebooks of accounts on assumption and presumption\nwithout any material evidence, without cross examination or inquiry from purchasers,\nalso erred in not considering the material and details in their true perspective and sense\ndespite available on record. Also erred in making the addition without invoking any\nprovision of the Act/law. Hence the addition so made

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

gains of business or profession" The judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant also approve this view. Ld ITAT in its order for AY 2016-17 in the case of appellant has also computed income of the appellant without making separate addition on account of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act though the appellant had disallowed amount