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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016 has submitted as under: - o"kZ ds nkSjku fy;k x;k Unsecured Loans dh jkf'k 22]00]000 :- Fkh tks fd lHkh O;fDr;ksa ls psd }kjk yh xbZ FkhA muds lk{; Lo:i mu lHkh

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

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

RANJEET SHARMA,RAWATSAR vs. ITO, WARD NOHAR,, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961, where any sum is explanation offered by him is not satisfactory in the opinion of A.O., the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In the instant case, the AO after appellant's failure in establishing that the bank deposits

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

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

131 or Section 133(6) of the Act. However, in this regard, the ld. AR submitted that during the course of proceedings all the duly signed account statement, bank accounts, ITR and interest account were duly furnished and properly verified by AO. There has not been any single amount of cash being deposited into the accounts of cash creditors

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

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

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, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno 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

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

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

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

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

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

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

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

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

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B,\nconstruction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made\nto Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended\nhypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter\nshall fall under which of the specific sections

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. PLAZA TEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. deleting addition of 2,24,00,000/- merely by pointing out the faults in the order of AO but did not give any positive findings and neither referred to the documents placed on assessment record as the powers of CIT(A) are coterminous with that of the AO, as held

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

131 of the Act was also issued to Sh. Suresh Kumar and his statement was recorded wherein he stated that he signed blank cheque and bill books and handed over the same to Sh. Shailendra Singh, Jodhpur. He did not know about the usage of these cheques and bill books. 3.4 The ld. AO also gathered that M/s Vinayak Enterprises

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

68 TO 73).Further query relating to investment was raised at the time of statement recorded u/s 131 during survey. Your kind attention is drawn to the statement recorded during survey proceedings wherein the various in depth queries were raised and replied in comprehensive manner. Further assessing officer during assessment proceedings appreciated the statement and impounded material in the backdrop

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)

68 on account of increase in share capital which was upheld by CIT(A) was not justified 2.2In the case of PCIT v/s MeetaGutgutia Prop. Ferns Patel &Ors 395 ITR 526(Del) held Search and Seizure—New scheme of assessment in search cases—Validity of invocation of Section 153A—On basis of documents recovered during search and seizure