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

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

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)

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. 3. The brief facts of the case are that

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

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

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

145 taxman.com 510 (Delhi) dt.17.10.2022.\n1.2.6 In the case of Rames Bhojprasad Gupta vs. ITO ITA No. 476/SRT/2019, Feb 7, 2022\n(2022) 64 CCH 0090 SuratTrib it has been held That Reassessment-Reopening of assessment—\nAO on basis of AIR information noted that assessee made deposit in his bank account in PNB—\nAO recorded that in response to notice

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