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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed income so as to initiate proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. Furthermore, it has even been contended that in case of assessment under section153A, 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

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

undisclosed income. c. It is worthwhile to mention here that under survey, AO cannot record statement on oath, though he can record the statement of any person which may be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under the Act. Such statement is only an information and has no evidentiary value to be used only for corroboration purposes

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

M/S. SIR PRATAP HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. ,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.488 To 494/Jodh/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Sir Pratap Heritage Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Acit– Central Circle-1 बनाम/ 1, Amarkantak Road Jodhpur Dhanpuri, Shahdol Rajasthan Vs. Madhya Pradesh-484 114. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-4923-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

income emanating from declared sources but from all sources including undisclosed ones. For the same, analogy was drawn from decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel V/s ACIT 2013 259 CTR 281 which held that the word ‘assess’ has been used in the context of abated proceedings and the word ‘reassess’ has been used in the context

M/S. SIR PRATAP HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. ,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.488 To 494/Jodh/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Sir Pratap Heritage Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Acit– Central Circle-1 बनाम/ 1, Amarkantak Road Jodhpur Dhanpuri, Shahdol Rajasthan Vs. Madhya Pradesh-484 114. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-4923-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

income emanating from declared sources but from all sources including undisclosed ones. For the same, analogy was drawn from decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel V/s ACIT 2013 259 CTR 281 which held that the word ‘assess’ has been used in the context of abated proceedings and the word ‘reassess’ has been used in the context

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

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

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR vs. BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE , PALI

Accordingly, it is held that the AO rightly added Rs.19,06,200/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act,1961. The appellant fails on this ground. The ground raised by the appellant regarding this issue is, hereby, ...

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-Central Circle-2 Bhanwar Singh Rathore बनाम/ Room No.68, Income Tax Office Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Paota, C-Road Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. Rajasthan-306 401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.02/Jodh/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Bhanwar Singh Rathore Acit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Room No.68, Income Tax Office Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Paota, C-Road Vs. Rajasthan-306 401 Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

undisclosed investments. The assessee is similarly aggrieved by partial confirmation of cash deposits. 3 Shri Bhanwar Singh Rathore Assessment Year: 2012-13 1.2 The registry has noted a delay of 254 days in assessee’s cross-objections, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee. The delay has been attributed to adverse medical conditions being faced

SHRI GAUTAM SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 120/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke Shri Gautam Sharma The Dcit Vs. 221-222, Shyam Nagar, Scheme, Pali Central Circle Link Road, Jodhpur Jodhpur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Awdps 1276 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By: Shri Abhimanyu Yadav, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/06/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Dated 12-02-2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 147/ R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 Due To Prevailing Covid-19 Pandemic Condition, The Hearing Of The Appeal Is Concluded Through Video Conference. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.40.57 Lacs Paid Towards Purchase Of Land, By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act.

undisclosed income of the assessee has been utilised in making cash payment. The intent and purpose for which Section 40A(3) has been brought on the statute book has been clearly satisfied in the instant case. Therefore, being a case of genuine business transaction, no disallowance

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

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

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

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

undisclosed purposes. Further, it is noticed that Ld.CIT(A) observed that despite having sufficient cash in hand, the assessee withdraw the amount. It is correct that the assessee has withdrawn higher amounts than the immediate preceding years but that cannot be sole reason for making addition purely on the basis of suspicion. Further, I failed to understand the reasoning