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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

23,000/- by making an addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act and disallowance of interest for an amount of Rs. 3,16,663/-. 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

23,000/- by making an addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act and disallowance of interest for an amount of Rs. 3,16,663/-. 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding

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-

23) That it is further for your kind consideration that the submission made by assessee That it is further for your kind consideration that the submission made by assessee That it is further for your kind consideration that the submission made by assessee was partial submission. (24) That the order under section 250 was passed on 10/01/2024 as under

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

section 68 of the Act as it is established by the investigation agency that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus transactions in the form of accommodation entry. Since, the transaction made has been established in the hand of the assessee, which is duly mentioned in the CD as well as documents available with the department, therefore, the onus

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

10. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on the record .Upon careful consideration of the rival contentions and the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The reasons recorded by the AO were based on specific, credible, and tangible material, including

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

10. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on the record .Upon careful consideration of the rival contentions and the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The reasons recorded by the AO were based on specific, credible, and tangible material, including

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the act and and added to the income of the assessee. In addition to the cash-credits, the AO has further made addition of Rs. 8,56,000/- u/s 69A of the by treating the deposit in the name of Sh. Mohan Ram Choudhary and Smt.Tulchi Devi

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

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief

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

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

68, 69, 69A to 69D of the Act. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made on loose sheets of papers unless some independent and corroborative materials to prove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or unaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. Further the seized documents in the case

LIFE CARE HOSPITAL,SIROHI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10 Life Care Hospital, Abu Road, Sirohi. Ground No. 6 :The ld. AO erred in taxing u/s 115BBE of Income Tax Act, the income disclosed in the return of income after survey u/s 133A of the Act, rather than taxing under the normal provision of the Income Tax Act : 1. In the case of assessee survey was carried

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

23-03-2017. (6) That as per provisions of section 253(3) of the Act I was required to file the appeal before ITAT within 60 days of receipt of order of CIT-(Appeals) i.e by 22-05-2017. 4 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO The provisions of section

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

23-03-2017. (6) That as per provisions of section 253(3) of the Act I was required to file the appeal before ITAT within 60 days of receipt of order of CIT-(Appeals) i.e by 22-05-2017. 4 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO The provisions of section

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

23-03-2017. (6) That as per provisions of section 253(3) of the Act I was required to file the appeal before ITAT within 60 days of receipt of order of CIT-(Appeals) i.e by 22-05-2017. 4 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO The provisions of section

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

23-03-2017. (6) That as per provisions of section 253(3) of the Act I was required to file the appeal before ITAT within 60 days of receipt of order of CIT-(Appeals) i.e by 22-05-2017. 4 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO The provisions of section

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

23-03-2017. (6) That as per provisions of section 253(3) of the Act I was required to file the appeal before ITAT within 60 days of receipt of order of CIT-(Appeals) i.e by 22-05-2017. 4 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO The provisions of section

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

sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings uis 274 and 271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable

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

23 flats for financial year 2015-16. Accordingly he estimated the additional\ncharges of these flats and worked out to Rs.67,50,000/- and Rs.57,50,000/- for\nfinancial year 2014-15 and 2015-16 i.e A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively by\nstating that the same is not considered and declared by the assessee company in the\nreturn