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)

credit. In such a scenario why assessee will need additional cash in hand balance. Thus it is out of common understanding that assessee kept on accumulating cash balance by withdrawing another 27lacs in the month of August, 54 lacs in the month of September and Rs18,00,000/- in October 2016. 3. Even if the claim of the assessee

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)

Credit entries in Para 5.15 Para 22.4 1 HBS A/c 20,07,18,875 Pg. 23-24 Double addition 20,07,18,875 0 Pg 119 Interest and Reversal of certain Dividend Para 5.18 entries in Bank A/c Para 26.3.2(c) 2 Income 1,41,97,602 Pg 28 and deductions

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)

cash entries in the bankaccounts, etc.the ITAT noticed inter alia that all the additions werenot based upon anyfresh materials seized during the course of search. That was the first groundfor setting aside the order; the lTAT also considered and decided in fovouroftheassessee on the merits ofthe additions. The approach of the ITAT for setting aside the search Assessment on theground

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

credit of income of Rs.1 Crore included in the returned income of the assessee, which was admitted as undisclosed investment in construction of hospital building, earned from undisclosed professional income/receipts, during the course of survey u/s 133A carried out at the premises of the assessee, in his statement recorded on 19/20.02.2019. 7. (i). The ld. AO has erred on facts

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

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

unexplained investment in gold jewellery u/s 69 of the Act\n7.1. The Ld. AR argued that during the time of search, the gold jewellery of Rs.\n3,06,65,897/- were found from the house and bank lockers of family members of\nassessee. Further in the statement the assessee had explained that gold belonging to\nthe female members