DHANPAT RAJ KHATRI - HUF,JAISALMER vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs The Ito Khatri Pada, Jaisalmer Jaisalmer

undisclosed sources- assessment assessee’s explanation based on accounts supported by affidavit, Accounts accepted as genuine and statements in affidavits not controverted- Finding based on no evidence- Inference from proved or admitted facts-If question of law – Principle of interference from Income Tax Act- Indian Income Tax Act (XI of 1922, ss 62(3), 10 ITA 8/JODH/2020 SHRI DHANPAT

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

disallowance of excess stock claimed by the\nassessee.\n5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed his\nreturn of income on 18.09.2015 in response to a notice u/s\n142(1) by ITO, Ward Nohar. In this return, assessee has\ndeclared an income of Rs. 72,61,700/- and agriculture income\nof Rs.3

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

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

undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search or requisition - Where an assessment has been framed earlier and no assessment or reassessment was pending on the date of initiation of search u/s 132 or making of requisition u/s 132A, addition or disallowances

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed income so as to initiate proceedings u/s 153A of the\nAct. Furthermore, it has even been contended that in case of assessment under\nsection153A, the addition or disallowance

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs. I.T.A. No. 399/Jodh/2024 ACIT vs. Mukesh Shah 15 30,000/- made u/s 24(a) is deleted. In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the finding so recorded in the order of ld. CIT(A), revenue preferred the present appeal challenging the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on the grounds

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

income may assessee company may not be determined on the basis of the\nactual sales as calculated in the above table for the respective years. In response\nthereto the assessee has filed the detailed reply dated 01.12.2017 available at PB\n71 to 102 with details also reproduced at page 7 to 19 of the assessment order\nthrough which assessee explained

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

undisclosed investments in silver\nduring the years. Therefore, it is clear that the silver bars were not purchased during the year\nunder consideration as wrongly alleged. When the ld. AO has made the addition by alleging that\nthe same found in the A.Y. 2019-20 and we have disproved the allegation of the ld. AO the ld.\nCIT

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

undisclosed investments in silver\nduring the years. Therefore, it is clear that the silver bars were not purchased during the year\nunder consideration as wrongly alleged. When the ld. AO has made the addition by alleging that\nthe same found in the A.Y. 2019-20 and we have disproved the allegation of the ld. AO the ld.\nCIT

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

undisclosed cash deposits PNB'—Assessing Officer also disallowed disallowance\nunder Chapter-VI-A by taking view that no such deduction claimed in original return of income

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

undisclosed is required to be added back to the total income of the assessee to arrive at the correct taxable income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer making the above addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. So far as to ground of addition

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

undisclosed income for a\nconsideration or commission. It is relevant to mention here that the prices have increased\nmany fold times as soon as the period of one year has expired so as to avail the benefit of\nexempt long term gain. There is no justifiable indicator such as some significant business\ntransaction in the case of M/s. Safal Herbs

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. ASHAPURNA INFRAPROJECT PVT. LTD., , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." And finally, it was held that on the date of search, the assessments for A.YS 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07, already stood completed and since no incriminating material was unearthed during

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. ASHAPURNA INFRAPROJECT PVT. LTD., , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." And finally, it was held that on the date of search, the assessments for A.YS 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07, already stood completed and since no incriminating material was unearthed during

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

disallowed and Rs.500000/-as added back to total income of assessee. On the above facts, income of the assessee is calculated as under:- Returned Income 4,29,620/- Add: Addition on a/c of wrong claim of 80G 5,00,000/- Total Income 9,29,620/- After that Ld. AO initiated penal proceedings U/S 270A

RAMDEO PAN BHANDAR,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal filed by the asessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteram Deo Pan Bhandar Vs. Acit, Circle -1, Kem Road, Bikaner, Bikaner-334001, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aabfr3308M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance of discount expenses to the file of the Assessing officer for verification and we allow the ground of appeal for statistical purpose. The second disputed issue is with respect to addition of Rs. 4,65,346/- made by the AO as undisclosed income

PATEL MINERALS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Disallowance on account non 7,58,076/- commencement of business activity treating the same as capital expenditure 3 Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) entire share 51,00,000/- capital and Share Premium Amount Total Addition 58,58,076/- Total Income 51,00,000/- 5. Being aggrieved, appellant filed first appeal before CIT A-1, Udaipur (Raj) which was later

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54F by the assessee as there was no addition on the ground as recorded in reasons to believe u/s 148. The Ld. CIT(A) order is against the binding judicial precedents of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Sh. Ram Singh (306 ITR 343) & CIT v/s Dr. Devendra Gupta (336 ITR 59) 4.That

M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

Income Tax Act, by the ITO, Ward-02, Bhilwara. 2 M/s Shree Tirupati Associates 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “During the assessment year 2011-12 assessee has purchased two properties/ Lands & paid Rs. 451000/- to Smt. Huma Husain & Rs. 200000/- to Sanchi Buildtek Pvt. Ltd. in cash as part payment against total cost