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.”

properties at Rs. 1.95 Cr. Further, there has been unexplained investment of Rs. 12 Lacs. Total undisclosed investment comes Rs. 2.07 Cr. As has been mentioned above, the undisclosed income of Rs. 1.95 Cr was offered by the assessee during the course of search proceedings as per statement u/s. 132(4). Subsequently, during the course of post search proceedings also

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.”

properties at Rs. 1.95 Cr. Further, there has been unexplained investment of Rs. 12 Lacs. Total undisclosed investment comes Rs. 2.07 Cr. As has been mentioned above, the undisclosed income of Rs. 1.95 Cr was offered by the assessee during the course of search proceedings as per statement u/s. 132(4). Subsequently, during the course of post search proceedings also

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)

house property. Accordingly the 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

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained investment in the construction of the aforesaid property. Therefore it is not a case that no opportunity was given by the AO to the appellant with reference to the valuation report and therefore contention of the appellant on this issue is not found acceptable. (iv) Further the appellant has contended that the addition

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.

unexplained investment in construction of Mount View School and house of assessee's son Sh. Om Prakash. 24. As per the ld DR in the return of income the assessee offered to tax only the income as noted in (i) to (iv) above, aggregating Rs. 20 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT 1,18,11,563/-. Further

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.

unexplained investment in construction of Mount View School and house of assessee's son Sh. Om Prakash. 24. As per the ld DR in the return of income the assessee offered to tax only the income as noted in (i) to (iv) above, aggregating Rs. 20 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT 1,18,11,563/-. Further

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

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

unexplained investment in gold jewellery u/s 69 of the Act 7.1. The Ld. AR argued that during the time of search, the gold jewellery of Rs. 3,06,65,897/- were found from the house and bank lockers of family members of assessee. Further in the statement the assessee had explained that gold belonging to the female members

SMT. LEELA DEVI SANKHLECHA,JODHPUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmismt. Leela Devi Sankhlecha Vs The Ito C-133, Kamla Nehru Nagar Ward 3(4) X-1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aobps 7384 G

unexplained investment and disallowance of Rs. 5,65,880/- u/s. 14A of Act. In order u/s. 143(3)/250 dated 12-09-2013, the AO as per the direction of the CIT(A), reduced the amount of addition of Rs. 33,00,000/- from the total assessed income and further arrived at a figure Rs. 791675/- being amount

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN ,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Us.

house property for an amount of Rs.60,00,000/-. A payment of Rs.36,00,000/-was made on 27.11.2015 and the remaining payment was made on 30.04.2016. The Assessing Officer failed to verify the said information as to whether the registered deed was executed or not. The AO is directed to examine this issue after verifying necessary details and documents

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)

unexplained foreign assets. 19. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,07,18,875/- and of Rs. 80,10,38,174/- on account of Credit entries and market value of foreign assets as reflected in the bank account of BWR Trust 20. Under the facts

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

Houses 67,63,42,730.00 5. Contract Work Receipt Gujrat 7,00,89,184.00 6. Agri Development and Other Misc. Contract 9,80,11,520.00 Work Receipt 7. Contract work receipt from B & G 73,97,869.00 Construction 8. Receipt Vat 14% 6,07,583.00 9. Vat 5% 6,01,259.00 10. Vat Free (Exempted) 65,85,891.85 11. Contract

SHRI AMANDEEP SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD-1,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Stay Application No

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2009-10

Property is From his Undisclosed Income and Making the Addition U/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. No Information whatsoever in Nature Regarding Source of Unexplained Investment had been given in Reasons or not mentioned in Assessment. So Addition cannot be upheld on this Ground. 8. That the Ld. A.O. had failed to made the addition on the basis

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

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

Unexplained Money and be taxed u/s 69A of the I.T. Act under the head Income from Other Sources and accordingly assessee was requested to reply the same online by 04.12.2019.” 6. It was submitted that the allegation of the AO that the assessee had already made the investment in property amounting to Rs. 1,27,20,200/- out of cash

SMT. ANJU RAJPUROHIT,PALI vs. AO,NFAC, DELHI / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statiscal purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad181/Jodh/2022 (Assessment Year- 2013-14) Smt. Anju Rajpurohit Vs The Ito 2-A-33, New Housing Board, Ward-1, Pali, Pali-306 401 Pali (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Agzpr 6477 R

Housing Board, Ward-1, Pali, Pali-306 401 Pali (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO.AGZPR 6477 R Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv Revenue By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 22/03/2023 Date of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

housing development and town planning, which is the core activity of the appellant in this case also, has been held to be charitable activities within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act fully considering the scope of the proviso below S. 2(15). The law as understood and declared thus by the Hon'ble Apex Court shall relate

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)

investing companies— Accordingly, AO made addition u/s 68—CIT(A), after considering remand report of AO and rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, upheld AO’s action—Held,addition made by AO on account of increase in share capital/share premium was based on balance sheet filed by assessee during course of assessment proceedings and nowhere from assessment order