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

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.”

section 68. For taxing loan creditors u/s 68, the assessee is required to prove: (a) Identity of creditor (b) Genuineness of transaction; and (c) Creditworthiness of creditor. Once an assessee has submitted the documents such as (i) PAN, (ii) income-tax returns of creditors, (iii) the details of bank accounts through and to which the loan amount has passed

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

150/-. 11. It was submitted that as per provisions of Section 80IA(6) of the Act and Rule 18BBE of the Income-tax Rules, deduction is available on the profit of housing or other activities, which are integral part of a highway project and for claiming deduction, the assessee has to maintain separate accounts for the said activities

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

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

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

Section 251(1)(a) itself provides\n251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the 22[* * *] 30[Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the\nfollowing powers—\n(a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the\nassessment33 34[* * *];\nAnd in the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2016-17 the assessee has not filed the appeal

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

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

Section 251(1)(a) itself provides\n251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the 22[* * *] 30[Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the\nfollowing powers—\n(a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the\nassessment33 34[* * *];\nAnd in the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2016-17 the assessee has not filed the appeal

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.

section, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that " ............... Since the ld. AO had not proceeded as per the mandatory provision of law, hence the ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the impugned asst. order. The same may kindly be cancelled and quashed. Such action and decision ought to have been sue-moto taken

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

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

150 (ITAT) (Jd.) and Anand Prakash Soni Vs DCIT (2006) 101 TJ (Jd) 97 ignoring of cash flow statement was not found justified. However, there is no issue of ignoring cash flow statement in this case. Hence, this decision is not found applicable. whether the impounded diary belongs to the assessee. This is not the issue in the case

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

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

150 (ITAT) (Jd.) and Anand Prakash Soni Vs DCIT (2006) 101 TJ (Jd) 97 ignoring of cash flow statement was not found justified. However, there is no issue of ignoring cash flow statement in this case. Hence, this decision is not found applicable. whether the impounded diary belongs to the assessee. This is not the issue in the case

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

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

150 (ITAT) (Jd.) and Anand Prakash Soni Vs DCIT (2006) 101 TJ (Jd) 97 ignoring of cash flow statement was not found justified. However, there is no issue of ignoring cash flow statement in this case. Hence, this decision is not found applicable. whether the impounded diary belongs to the assessee. This is not the issue in the case

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

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

150 (ITAT) (Jd.) and Anand Prakash Soni Vs DCIT (2006) 101 TJ (Jd) 97 ignoring of cash flow statement was not found justified. However, there is no issue of ignoring cash flow statement in this case. Hence, this decision is not found applicable. whether the impounded diary belongs to the assessee. This is not the issue in the case

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

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

150 (ITAT) (Jd.) and Anand Prakash Soni Vs DCIT (2006) 101 TJ (Jd) 97 ignoring of cash flow statement was not found justified. However, there is no issue of ignoring cash flow statement in this case. Hence, this decision is not found applicable. whether the impounded diary belongs to the assessee. This is not the issue in the case

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

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

150 (ITAT) (Jd.) and Anand Prakash Soni Vs DCIT (2006) 101 TJ (Jd) 97 ignoring of cash flow statement was not found justified. However, there is no issue of ignoring cash flow statement in this case. Hence, this decision is not found applicable. whether the impounded diary belongs to the assessee. This is not the issue in the case

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

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

150 (ITAT) (Jd.) and Anand Prakash Soni Vs DCIT (2006) 101 TJ (Jd) 97 ignoring of cash flow statement was not found justified. However, there is no issue of ignoring cash flow statement in this case. Hence, this decision is not found applicable. whether the impounded diary belongs to the assessee. This is not the issue in the case