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

97,693/- and Rs.33,54,760/-. Contesting the disallowances, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178, the first appellate authority upheld the disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 4. At the time

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

97,693/- and Rs.33,54,760/-. Contesting the disallowances, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178, the first appellate authority upheld the disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 4. At the time

PUSHP RAJ BOHRA,JALORE vs. PR. CIT – 1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

97 (All) iv. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) v. CIT vs. Parmanad, D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 137/2014 vi. CIT vs. M/s. Jain Construction, D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 60/2012 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned order of learned CIT. He has submitted that that order under

P I INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Pi Industries Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur. Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aabcp 2183 M

Section 92E at all or has not disclosed the said transactions in the Accountant’s report filed; (b)where there has been a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹10 Crore or more in an earlier assessment year and such adjustment has been upheld by the judicial authorities or is pending in appeal; and (c)where search and seizure or survey operations

SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

97 ITR 239 (SC) 11 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT Belief should not be arbitrary or irrational but based on relevant and material reasons. 14. No incriminating material as to alleged undisclosed investment in construction activity was found during the course of search in case of the assessee, therefore, in the absence of incriminating material found, addition

SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

97 ITR 239 (SC) 11 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT Belief should not be arbitrary or irrational but based on relevant and material reasons. 14. No incriminating material as to alleged undisclosed investment in construction activity was found during the course of search in case of the assessee, therefore, in the absence of incriminating material found, addition

ARAVALI TRADING COMPANY,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAGAUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradaravali Trading Company, Vs Ito, 154, Near Bus Stand, Ward-1, Nagour Merta City, Nagaur, (Rajasthan) Rajasthan-341510 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfa7735M Assessee By Shri Kishan Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of 21/03/2023 Pronouncement

97,250/- as well as on account of shortage of stock found in different packing during the course of same survey proceeding and treated as hypothetically suppressed sale of Rs. 43,95,509/-and made addition of Rs. 43,955/- by applying hypothetical G P rate @ 1% on hypothetically presumed suppressed sale. 2 | P a g e b. That Authorities

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. VISHNU PRAKASH R PUGALIA, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia, Circle-1, P. No. 22, Subhash Colony, New Jodhpur. Pali Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aadfv 4672 J

depreciation and interest third party & interest and salary to partners. A survey proceeding was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 27.08.2013, 3 ITA 09/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs M/s Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia. where some incrementing documents has been found and seized. After making enquiry and verifications, the AO assessed total income of the assessee at Rs.9