M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return …. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the return

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

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

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

vi) if the explanation is not supported by any documentary or other evidences, then the deeming fiction created by section 68 can be invoked. 8. Examining the present case even on these parameters, first requirement is not relevant. So far as second requirement is concerned, there is no doubt about initial burden being on the assessee. So far as third

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

vi) if the explanation is not supported by any documentary or other evidences, then the deeming fiction created by section 68 can be invoked. 8. Examining the present case even on these parameters, first requirement is not relevant. So far as second requirement is concerned, there is no doubt about initial burden being on the assessee. So far as third