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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

money as tax exempt bogus capital gains.\n37.\nThe SEBI had recently imposed penalty on M/s. Safal Herbs Ltd. (formerly\nParikh Herbal Ltd.) for certain violations. In view of the above discussion, I am of the\nconsidered view that share transactions leading toLTCG by the appellant are sham\ntransaction entered into for the purpose of evading tax. Accordingly

PARKASH SINWAL,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, WARD, HANUMANGARH

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

unexplained money which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant was using regularly the bank accounts to transfer, deposit, withdraw money and to make payments 4 ITA No. 94 & SA No. 05/Jodh/2022 Prakash Sinwalv. ITO from it. It is argued that the bank accounts under consideration was not operated and managed

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

unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of\nthe Act\".\n4. In first appeal assessee has filed detailed WS(PB32-38) and documents admittedly, however\nthe ld. CIT(A) without considering and without deciding our legal grounds of appeal and legal\nposition, validity of proceedings\n5. In first appeal assessee challenged the legality, validity andproceeding u/s 147/148 and also\nchallenged

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

unexplained money, deposited into the bank, under the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- made to the total income of the Appellant under the head Short Term Capital Gain

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

unexplained money, deposited into the bank, under the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- made to the total income of the Appellant under the head Short Term Capital Gain

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

unexplained money, deposited into the bank, under the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- made to the total income of the Appellant under the head Short Term Capital Gain

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

unexplained credits and may not be added to his total income as per Provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016 has submitted as under: - o"kZ ds nkSjku fy;k x;k Unsecured Loans dh jkf'k 22]00]000 :- Fkh tks fd lHkh

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

unexplained credits and may not be added to his total income as per Provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016 has submitted as under: - o"kZ ds nkSjku fy;k x;k Unsecured Loans dh jkf'k 22]00]000 :- Fkh tks fd lHkh

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains as per provision of law and disclosed the same in her return of A.Y 2016-17. 4 Smt. Krishna Agarwal vs. ITO 4. It was submitted that from the bank statement, it can be observed that the assessee has received the sales consideration from sale of property in 2014 & 2015 and thereafter has withdrawn the cash

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

money is received in cash and out of\nbooks of account. In this support he referred some ledger A/c in the assessment\norder vide pages 22 to 27and made summary at page 28 of the assessment order.\nHe also stated that during the course of assessment the registries of the flats sold\nduring the year were obtained and payment details

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

gain or u/s 48, 56\nor u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the\nlaw and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any\nprovision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When in the law\nand

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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

gain or u/s 48, 56\nor u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the\nlaw and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any\nprovision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When in the law\nand

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

money, and if he falls to rebut it is the said evidence being unrebutted, can be used against him by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature. While considering the explanation of the assessee the Department cannot, however, act unreasonably." The Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically held that the opinion of AO is required to be formed