SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

undisclosed income, and overlooks the fact that the sources of deposit need not necessarily be income of the assessee. The amount deposited in the bank account may be out of sale proceeds of investments, property or agricultural income of the assessee which may be exempted under the Income Tax Act. Of course, it may be desirable, from the point

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)

undisclosed sale offered for tax. Apart from the above referred source, the assessee had received back loans advanced along with interest which was more than sufficient to advance an amount of Rs.50,000/- The difference in stock and cash was also duly reconciled. But the AO chose to make the addition solely relying on the surrender made by the assessee

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)

undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search or requisition - Where an assessment has been framed earlier and no assessment or reassessment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment or reopening of the assessment. The\ncase is squarely covered by the above judgment. Therefore, to complete\nassessment on the basis of illegal notice is illegal and void.\nOn the similar principals, the order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of\nManjunath Cotton Corp and M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows, on the issue of\npenalty

SHRI GOPAL SONI ,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Gopal Soni Prop Vs. The Acit, Circle – 1 Durga Silver Home Bikaner. Katla Chowk Nokha Rajasthan. Bikaner-334803, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aemps5097M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 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), Bikaner Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

undisclosed income for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 including the additional income of Rs. 50 lakhs surrendered post survey operations and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the AO has issued notice u/s 154 of the Act stating that the income

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

Reassessment-Reopening of assessment—\nAO on basis of AIR information noted that assessee made deposit in his bank account in PNB—\nAO recorded that in response to notice under section 148; assessee neither filed return of income\nnor responded—Assessing Officer ultimately by-passing assessment order made addition on\naccount of undisclosed

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

undisclosed income inferred by the authorities, there is no reason, why the Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani vs. ITO authorities should issue notice under Section 143(2). However, if an assessment is to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 158 BC, notice under Section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing

HEERA LAL KASARA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. The objections of the assessee were duly disposed off by the AO vide his letter dated 15.12.2016.Thereafter, the AO issued show cause notice asking the assessee to show cause as to why the undisclosed GP of Rs. 47,79,046/- should not be treated as income

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.

reassess the 'total incomeof the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYS "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income

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.

reassess the 'total incomeof the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYS "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income

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

income may assessee company may not be determined on the basis of the\nactual sales as calculated in the above table for the respective years. In response\nthereto the assessee has filed the detailed reply dated 01.12.2017 available at PB\n71 to 102 with details also reproduced at page 7 to 19 of the assessment order\nthrough which assessee explained

VINOD (RATAN) SUHALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

undisclosed investment in property which was not disclosed in original return filed on 28-03-2008 as well as return u/s 153A dated 17-08- 2012. Taking into consideration all these facts, the ACIT, Central Circle-1 imposed the penalty of Rs.12,05,028/- u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act which was 8 VINOD (RATAN) SUHALKA VS ACIT

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

undisclosed business income of the firm around 0.5% of the gross turnover of Rs.\n33,54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act\nduring survey proceedings.\n2.1\nFurther, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

undisclosed sales." This view is fully supported by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. President Industries reported in 225 ITR Page 47 and also by various other courts. (ix) It is also well settled position of law that tax can be levied only on the net income/profits and not on gross receipts for which

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

undisclosed sales." This view is fully supported by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. President Industries reported in 225 ITR Page 47 and also by various other courts. (ix) It is also well settled position of law that tax can be levied only on the net income/profits and not on gross receipts for which

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

undisclosed sales." This view is fully supported by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. President Industries reported in 225 ITR Page 47 and also by various other courts. (ix) It is also well settled position of law that tax can be levied only on the net income/profits and not on gross receipts for which

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

undisclosed sales." This view is fully supported by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. President Industries reported in 225 ITR Page 47 and also by various other courts. (ix) It is also well settled position of law that tax can be levied only on the net income/profits and not on gross receipts for which

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

undisclosed sales." This view is fully supported by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. President Industries reported in 225 ITR Page 47 and also by various other courts. (ix) It is also well settled position of law that tax can be levied only on the net income/profits and not on gross receipts for which