SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

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

gains on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3)/144 of the Act. The assessee was asked to produce the documents related to the capital account and the statement of affairs for the impugned assessment year. The assessee placed that the return was filed u/s 44AD and assessee has availed

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

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

gains on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3)/144 of the Act. The assessee was asked to produce the documents related to the capital account and the statement of affairs for the impugned assessment year. The assessee placed that the return was filed u/s 44AD and assessee has availed

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

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

gains on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3)/144 of the Act. The assessee was asked to produce the documents related to the capital account and the statement of affairs for the impugned assessment year. The assessee placed that the return was filed u/s 44AD and assessee has availed

SHRINATH PRODUCTS,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Shrinath Products Vs. Ito. Ward 1(1), A.M.Mehta & Co, Udaipur, 6-B, Bapu Bazar, Rajasthan. Udaipur.-313001, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfs9840Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair. Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-1,Udaipur Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax (Act), 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

Capital Gains and assessed the total income of Rs.40,17,450/- and passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 29.01.2015. 3. Subsequently the AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SURAJ FABRICS INDUSTRIES LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

271(1)(c) in respect of the disallowance made u/s 40A(3). Therefore, following the decision of Jurisdictional ITAT, the penalty levied in respect of the disallowance of Rs. 5,16,066/- made u/s 40A(3) is hereby cancelled. (iii) Regarding the addition of Rs. 28,950/- made under the head "long term capital gain

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

271(1)(c) holding that not to tick correct limb of the notice regarding\nconcealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income, renders the notice and\nconsequential proceedings as invalid and void, was confirmed by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows. Copy of notice u/s\n148 is enclosed-2.\n(2)\nThat

UMMAID MAL SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

Accordingly, legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Ummaid Mal Singhvi, Acit, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Vs Central Circle-2, 106 Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th Jodhpur B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Abpps7429D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur Dated 30Th September, 2019 For Assessment Year 2008-09 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aaa Of The Income Tax Act Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Ummaid Mal Singhvi

capital gain declared by the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 50C. The imposition of penalty on addition of 1,42,000/- is erroneous as: a) The finding recorded by the Ld. AO that the Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the addition of 142000/- is patently erroneous as the Hon'ble Tribunal only confirmed the direction

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

gains of business or profession" The judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant also approve this view. Ld ITAT in its order for AY 2016-17 in the case of appellant has also computed income of the appellant without making separate addition on account of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act though the appellant had disallowed amount