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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

131(1)(d) of the Act, which the A.O. completely failed. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that even the bank statement which was called by the A.O. directly from the bank clearly indicate that there was sufficient credit balance in the bank account of the lender. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) considered various judicial pronouncements and after applying

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

131(1)(d) of the Act, which the A.O. completely failed. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that even the bank statement which was called by the A.O. directly from the bank clearly indicate that there was sufficient credit balance in the bank account of the lender. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) considered various judicial pronouncements and after applying

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner [herein after “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 28.09.2018 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. When name, address and PAN of concerned factories were submitted along

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\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

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

D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Pr.CIT-1, Jodhpur dated 19/03/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) wherein following grounds have been raised: “1. The Ld. PCIT was wrong in law as well

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

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

Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature at this stage, both the grounds are dismissed. 6. The ground No. 7 raised by the appellant is regarding charging of interest amounting to Rs. 24,49.836/- u/s 234B of the Act. This being consequential in nature, the AO is directed to allow relief

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 115BBE of the Act on the professional income of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- surrendered by the appellant assessee during the course of survey u/s 133A and which was included by him in his return income. The ld. AO has also erred in invoking provisions of sec. 115BBE on addition of Rs.1,00,000/- made

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

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

131 of the Act, assessee has stated that she has no bank account or property in any foreign country. However, department proceeded further with inquiries and obtaining of information by FT & TR Division and post two references certain bank accounts statements from Hinduja Bank were made available. 20. Thereafter, based on this information available from FT & TR post search proceedings

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAMARPAN SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. , BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Samarpan Synthetics Pvt. Circle, Ltd., Bhilwara 54, Bhilwara Textiles Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara-311001, Rahasthan. Pan No. Aahcs 4365 G

D E R PER BENCH The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 25/03/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17, wherein the Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Deleting the addition of Rs.7,82,95,551/- u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 made by the AO on account

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 could be made. (ii) CIT and Anr V/s Lancy Constructions (2017) 295 CTR (Kar) 454Assessment u/s 153A computation of undisclosed income - When there were no incriminating documents found during the course of search – If assessment is allowed to be reopened on the basis of search, in which no incriminating material had been found, and merely on the basis

SHRI JITENDRA OJHA ,SIROHI vs. ITO,, SIROHI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Accountant Mrmber Shri Jiterndra Ojha Vs The Ito, S/O Sh. Mangi Lal Ojha , Sirohi. Chhoti Brahmpuri, Sirohi.

D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.08.2018 of Ld. CIT(A)-I, Jodhpur for the assessment year 2009-10 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein the assessee has taken following grounds:- That

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur-2 dated 27.03.2023 [here in after (ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2014-15 which in turn arise from the order dated 30.12.2016 passed under 2 Smt. Pushpa Chhajer section

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These are seven appeals filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Udaipur-2 [hereinafter referred to as (ld. CIT(A)] dated 24.02.2023, 25.02.2023 & 27.02.2023 for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2019- Bikaner passed u/s. 147 of the Income

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These are seven appeals filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Udaipur-2 [hereinafter referred to as (ld. CIT(A)] dated 24.02.2023, 25.02.2023 & 27.02.2023 for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2019- Bikaner passed u/s. 147 of the Income

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These are seven appeals filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Udaipur-2 [hereinafter referred to as (ld. CIT(A)] dated 24.02.2023, 25.02.2023 & 27.02.2023 for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2019- Bikaner passed u/s. 147 of the Income