SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

32,20,000/- Estimated cost, 1/3rd (in round figures) Rs. 10.75.000/- Profit Rs. 21,45.000/- During the course of hearing of appeal the A/R of the appellant has agreed to the above. The AO is, therefore, directed to make addition of Rs. 21.45,000/- for the income on account of above profit from land at Badi as an enhancement

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on dated 22-11-2011 determining total income Rs. 10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the case MGB Gramin Bank

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on dated 22-11-2011 determining total income Rs. 10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the case MGB Gramin Bank

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on dated 22-11-2011 determining total income Rs. 10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the case MGB Gramin Bank

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on dated 22-11-2011 determining total income Rs. 10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the case MGB Gramin Bank

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on dated 22-11-2011 determining total income Rs. 10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the case MGB Gramin Bank

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on dated 22-11-2011 determining total income Rs. 10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the case MGB Gramin Bank

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

ii) upon the formation of that belief and before he proceeds to make an assessment, reassessment or precomputations, the AO has to serve on the assessee a notice under sub-s. (1) of s. 148; (iii) the AO may assess or reassess such income, which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable

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)

1. Various questions of law with respect to disallowance and additions made inthe course of re-assessment proceedings are urged by the Revenue in its appeal under Section 260A of the income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). 2.The search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in the assessee's premises on 10.2.2010. This resulted in notices

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

32. It may be noted that the statement recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making the assessment only if such statement is made in context with other evidence, or material discovered during search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable to any incriminating document or material found during search

M.P. POONIA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

32,766/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In this case, the ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 1,18,000/- made on account of low house hold withdrawals by observing that the assessee is Principal officer of reputed engineering College and according to his status and living standard, the given withdrawals are not plausible. Looking

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

1,26,65,229/-(8194403+4470826)\ninstead of Rs.81,94,403/- declared by the assessee. Accordingly he has made\naddition of Rs.44,70,826/- in the A.Y. 2013-14. Same type of additions have also\nbeen made in the A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17 asper the above chart.\n6.2. Further

MANOJ KUMAR KHUBANI,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR 2 JDH, JODHPUR

In the result, stands ALLOWED

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

ii. There was no information gathered during the survey operation suggesting that the assessee has made some investment for the earning of such undisclosed receipts as discussed above. In view of the above, it is the only the element of profit embedded in such business receipts which can be added to the total income of the assessee. The appellant draws