M/S. PRATIK METALS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Prateek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income E-74, Marudhar Ind. Area, Tax-1, Basni-Ii, Jodhpur. Jodhpur.

Section 56 of the Act were applicable only from assessment year 2013-14 and were not applicable in the year under consideration. Even on merits of the case it was submitted that the assessee had submitted that voluminous details with regard to the issue of share capital. The assessee company received a total

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

AMRINDER SINGH JOSAN,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 492/Jodh/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 48 of IT Act which is mandatory and still available on the statue therefore the order passed by the assessing officer is not sustainable.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148. The addition was made related to deposit of cash in bank account amount of Rs.5 lac u/s 68

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

164/- is to be taxed on normal\nrates. As far as this remaining income is concerned, we have\nalready deleted the additions made by the AO, but short question\nis whether this surrendered income is to be taxed u/s 115BBE\nor under the normal provision. It is pertinent to note that the\n assessment year involved herein is accounting year

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

164 that the best guide for estimation of the trading results after rejecting the books is either the past history of the assessee or any other comparable case. The past history of the assessee takes preference over a comparable case. He, thus, took the trading results of the assessee company of the past three years which had been subjected