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, the appeal is dismissed

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

M/S. SIR PRATAP HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. ,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.488 To 494/Jodh/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Sir Pratap Heritage Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Acit– Central Circle-1 बनाम/ 1, Amarkantak Road Jodhpur Dhanpuri, Shahdol Rajasthan Vs. Madhya Pradesh-484 114. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-4923-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

reassess the total income of 6 assessment years. The total income will cover not only the income emanating from declared sources but from all sources including undisclosed

M/S. SIR PRATAP HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. ,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.488 To 494/Jodh/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Sir Pratap Heritage Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Acit– Central Circle-1 बनाम/ 1, Amarkantak Road Jodhpur Dhanpuri, Shahdol Rajasthan Vs. Madhya Pradesh-484 114. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-4923-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

reassess the total income of 6 assessment years. The total income will cover not only the income emanating from declared sources but from all sources including undisclosed

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

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

PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainsh. Prakash Chandra Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer 67-68, Hiran Magri, Sector Ward 1(1), Udaipur No. 08, Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavpj 3696 E

income. It is a case of reopening of assessment on suspicions. Thus, we are of the view that the AO has not satisfied the mandatory condition prescribed for 9 Prakash Chandra Jain Udaipur vs. ITO, Udaipur initiation of reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned reassessment proceeding is bad in law. 11. We noticed that the AO has reopened

M/S. PRATIK METALS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Prateek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income E-74, Marudhar Ind. Area, Tax-1, Basni-Ii, Jodhpur. Jodhpur.

undisclosed income of the assessee. Reference was also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Barkha Synthetic Ltd. 182 CTR (Raj) L75, in which High Court has followed the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Steller Investments Ltd. 8. In order

THAKUR BUILDCON (P) LTD. ,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAJSAMAND

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s ground stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.345/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Thakur Buildcon (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer-Ward-1 C/O. Rajendra Jain Advocate Rajsamand बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Rajasthan-313 324. Vs. 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7930-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.346/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-Ward-1 Thakur Buildcon (P) Ltd. बनाम/ Rajsamand Thakurgarh N.H. 8 Rajasthan-313 324. Sevali, Rajsamand Vs. Rajasthan-313 324. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7930-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

undisclosed income in cash purchases and added the same to the income of the assessee. 5.1 The assessee assailed the stand of Ld. AO on legal grounds as well as on merits. The challenge to jurisdiction u/s 148 met with no success since Ld. CIT(A) opined that reassessment

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