ITO, WARD, PHALODI, PHALODI vs. M/S RAMA ALLURE LLP, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

business relating to financial stock and commodities markets. • It e-filed its return of income for the AY 2020-21 on 25-12-2020 declaring the total income at Rs. 21,06,83,120/-. • The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act at the returned income. In the meantime, the respondent’s case was selected for ‘Complete

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)

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 @ 60% by the ld. AO. 3.3 Ld. AO also noted from the computation of income filed that the assessee has claimed Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 17,19,605/- on account of sale of immovable properties. Ld. AO considering the fact that the assessee engaged in the business

SITA DEVI CHOUDHARY,AHORE JALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALORE

In the result, stands allowed

Bench: The Cit(A) Challenging The Additions Made By The Ao. The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld Both The Additions Made By Observing-

section 68 and non-consideration of submission/evidence filed by the assessee. 2. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the appellant is running a petrol pump under the trade name of M/s Mahadev Petroleum. She had filed her ITR showing an income of Rs.8,49,300/- The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash credits (Sundry creditors) - Assessment year 2005-06-Assessee company was carrying on business

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

business had not been\naudited. Copies of all audited financial\nstatements were duly submitted to the Id.\nAO which are also submitted herewith.\nAdditions in capital assets during the year\nRs. 2,86,16,394/39. The same is also\nverifiable from the schedule of additions in\nfixed assets.\n8\nITA No. 541,544and 545/Jodh/2024\n(Assessment Years

MANJU GOYAL,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

68 to 69D of the Income Tax Act. The source of the income is well-explained and supported by statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings. 5. As on the date of the survey (23.08.2016), the amended provisions of Section 115BBE were not in force, and the surrendered income was accepted by the Revenue authorities as business

BANSI LAL KUMHAR,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

business. Under no circumstances can such income be treated as\nundisclosed income and assessed under the head income from other sources by\ninvoking provisions of section 68

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

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

business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain or u/s 48, 56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the law and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any provision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

business had not been\naudited. Copies of all audited financial\nstatements were duly submitted to the Id.\nAO which are also submitted herewith.\nCapital investment in fixed assets made\nduring the year, for which deduction under\n35AD was claimed.\nAdditions in capital assets during the year\nRs. 2,86,16,394/39. The same is also\nverifiable from the schedule

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

68,58,343/- Total Rs.97,05,59,476/- Net profit/total income Rs.16,45,86,794/- (-) 39 Varaha Infra Ltd. The net result of computation of net profit is loss. The result of computation of income made by Ld ITAT in respect of AY 2016-17 was also in loss as is evident from para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

business had not been audited. Copies of all audited financial statements were duly submitted to the Id. AO which are also submitted herewith. Capital investment in fixed assets made during the year, for which deduction under 35AD was claimed. Additions in capital assets during the year Rs. 2,86,16,394/39. The same is also verifiable from the schedule

DR. MANISH CHHAPARWAL ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

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

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

business income liable to be taxed under the normal tax rates, and only after set off of unabsorbed losses and depreciation if any income remains that income can only be taxed in the hands of the appellant, Further there was no justification in making such addition, as the id. r. AO is himself not sure that such income represents income

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Income –tax Act, 1961 – “Cash credit [Unsecured loan] – Assessment year 2007-08 – Whether when full particulars, inclusive of confirmation with name, address and PAN Number, copy of income tax returns, balance sheet, profit and loss account and computation of total income in respect of all creditors/ lenders were furnished and when it had been found that

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Income –tax Act, 1961 – “Cash credit [Unsecured loan] – Assessment year 2007-08 – Whether when full particulars, inclusive of confirmation with name, address and PAN Number, copy of income tax returns, balance sheet, profit and loss account and computation of total income in respect of all creditors/ lenders were furnished and when it had been found that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 and 69C.\n3. It is therefore, requested to quash the assessment order and /or delete the\nadditions.\"\n2.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual, derives\nincome from business and profession and other sources. During the year under\nconsideration the assessee filed her return of income in ITR-4 declaring income\nfrom business

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

business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain or u/s 48, 56\nor u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the\nlaw and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any\nprovision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make