GULAB DEVI KHANT,BANSWARA vs. ACIT, , CHITTORGARH.

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainismt. Gulab Devi Khant, Vs The Acit, W/O Late Shri Natwar Lal Chittorgarh Khanat, Khantwara, Banswara (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent)

91,081/-. However, the assessment was framed at an income of Rs. 17,68,000/- which included the addition of unexplained new cash creditors of Rs. 15,90,000/- and short term capital gain of Rs. 64,918/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act and levied the penalty

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

91,674.00 with gross profit rate of 14.49% and Net Profit rate of 3.51% as against the GP rate of 11.63% and NP rate of 3.07% for the immediately preceding year. The AO observed that the books of accounts were maintained in the same manner as in the immediately preceding year. He noted the reasons

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

91,674.00 with gross profit rate of 14.49% and Net Profit rate of 3.51% as against the GP rate of 11.63% and NP rate of 3.07% for the immediately preceding year. The AO observed that the books of accounts were maintained in the same manner as in the immediately preceding year. He noted the reasons

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

section 145(3) of the Act, considered the purchases of Rs. 85,18,926/- from following two parties as bogus:- 1. M/s Bhoomi Sales Corporation Rs. 57,91,028/- 2. M/s Saj Enterprises Rs. 27,27,898/- Total Rs. 85,18,926/- The Assessing Officer added 25% of the aforesaid purchases amounting to Rs. 21,29,732/- in the income

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

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

section 143(3) dated 30.12.2017 in the interest of equity and justice on this ground alone. Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. GOA-3: Addition of Rs. 44,701,826/- in A.Y. 2013-14, Rs.1,64,40,157/- or 5,91,76,693/- in A.Y. 2014-15, Rs.5,91

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

Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such\ntime limit would start from the end of the month

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

Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such\ntime limit would start from the end of the month

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such\ntime limit would start from the end of the month

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable to Income-tax as the income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not; or ** ** ** M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. [Explanation 1 - For the purposes

SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL SAMDANI,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Vs. I.T.O., D-43, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara Ward-3, (Raj)-311001. Bhilwara. Pan No. Adqps 6311 K Assessee By Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021

91,535.00 u/s 57 of the act and net interest income of Rs. 2,13,751.00 was duly offered for taxation in the computation of income. The expenditure claimed by us is allowable as per provisions of section 57 of the Act and used for the purpose of business only as it constitutes an admissible deduction as per the provision

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

capital of the assessee and the AO 6 ITA 45/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs Smt. Alpana Gupta. was not able to pin pointedly come to a definite conclusion which proves the nexus between interest bearing loans vis-à-vis interest free loan/advances, disallowance has been rightly deleted. Further, when there was no agreement to charge interest from the persons to whom

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