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 as under – (28) That another fact is that the H That another fact is that the Hon’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order on’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished but had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that the admission of the assessee was based upon the seized documents and was obtained without any coercion whatsoever. Further, the retraction of surrender was made after elapse of six months and indicates to afterthought 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that the admission of the assessee was based upon the seized documents and was obtained without any coercion whatsoever. Further, the retraction of surrender was made after elapse of six months and indicates to afterthought 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that the admission of the assessee was based upon the seized documents and was obtained without any coercion whatsoever. Further, the retraction of surrender was made after elapse of six months and indicates to afterthought 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter

DCIT, CENTRAL CICLE-1, JODHPUR vs. SANJAY SINGHAL, MOUNT ABU

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that the admission of the assessee was based upon the seized documents and was obtained without any coercion whatsoever. Further, the retraction of surrender was made after elapse of six months and indicates to afterthought 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter

RAJ KUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that the admission of the assessee was based upon the seized documents and was obtained without any coercion whatsoever. Further, the retraction of surrender was made after elapse of six months and indicates to afterthought 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that the admission of the assessee was based upon the seized documents and was obtained without any coercion whatsoever. Further, the retraction of surrender was made after elapse of six months and indicates to afterthought 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was\nlaunched on 11.09.2018 in the case of Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah of\nAhmedabad. The search resulted into seizure of unaccounted cash of Rs. 19.37\ncrores (related accommodation entries and commission earned thereon) along with\nincriminating digital as well as documentary evidences. Clandestine record of\nunaccounted cash, synchronized trading, proving bogus LTCG

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

132(4) of the Act, after giving credit of the cash in hand of Rs. 5,14,712/- as the same was stated to be reflected in the books of accounts of Mewar Hospital Private Limited to meet the daily expenses. The ld. counsel contended that the addition on this account is totally unreasonable and bad in law. He contended

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 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

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

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

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

132(4) stated that the notebook contains details of cash\nloan given by him to various persons during FY 2015-16 to 2017-18.\n2.3\nOn the basis of the said note book, the AO worked out financial year wise\nloans given and interest earned thereon. For the relevant year, the amount of loan\nwas worked out as Rs.7

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such

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

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

132(4) stated that the notebook contains details of cash\nloan given by him to various persons during FY 2015-16 to 2017-18.\n2.3\nOn the basis of the said note book, the AO worked out financial year wise\nloans given and interest earned thereon. For the relevant year, the amount of loan\nwas worked out as Rs.7

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)

132(4) in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search. Addition towards undisclosed income without establishing the basis found during the course of search could not be sustained. The assessment u/s 153A should focus on the basis of material and evidences gathered during the course of search. In this respect we like to draw your attention towards

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

132(4) of\nthe Income-tax Act enables the authorised officer to examine a person on oath\nand any statement made by such person during such examination can also be\nused in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever\nstatement is recorded under section 133A of the Income-tax Act it is not given\nany