RAJ KUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

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

search & seizure and survey operations no attempt\nshould be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action\non the contrary shall be viewed adversely.\nFurther, in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, assessing officers\nshould rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of\nsearch/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment\norders.\"\nFrom the foregoing

DINKAR MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Final Hearing, If Necessary.”

seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out on 10/12/2010 at the residence as well as business premises of Deejay Neelam Marble Group of Udaipur as per warrant of authorization issued by Director Sh. Dinkar Mogra, Udaipur General of Income-tax (Inv.), Jaipur. The case of the assessee was assigned to ACIT, Central Circle-02, Udaipur

DINKAR MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Final Hearing, If Necessary.”

seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out on 10/12/2010 at the residence as well as business premises of Deejay Neelam Marble Group of Udaipur as per warrant of authorization issued by Director Sh. Dinkar Mogra, Udaipur General of Income-tax (Inv.), Jaipur. The case of the assessee was assigned to ACIT, Central Circle-02, Udaipur

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

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

seizure proceedings were carried out at Udaipur in GBH American Hospital Group at Udaipur and based on the same notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 03.02.2020 to the Assessee. Thereafter, in compliance thereof Assessee filed its return of income along with notes to return of income, which is available at page no. 2-15 of Paper Book

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.

seizure operations U/sec132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of Mahendra Tak Group cases at Udaipur on 21.03.2017.Certain documents and papers found in the course of search operations and the Assessing Officer (AO) has issued notice u/s 153A of the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income in compliance to notice u/s 153A

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.

seizure operations U/sec132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of Mahendra Tak Group cases at Udaipur on 21.03.2017.Certain documents and papers found in the course of search operations and the Assessing Officer (AO) has issued notice u/s 153A of the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income in compliance to notice u/s 153A

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

property and transactions as recorded on such\nloose paper were false and incorrect. The Ld AO neither found any\nmaterial or evidence as a result of search to corroborate the same nor\nbrought on record any adverse material in contrary to statement &\naffidavits of Shri K.L. Gandhi and other evidence furnished by appellant.\nThe Ld. AR argued that