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

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

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

2 TO 4\n12. In these grounds of appeal, grievance of the assessee is that\nld. AO has disallowed claim of direct and indirect expenses. The\nassessee has made a claim of direct expenses to the extent of\nRs. 10,67,531/- and indirect expenses of Rs. 4,21,933/-. The ld.\nAO has disallowed this claim for want