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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

3,06,637/- was e-filed by the assessee on 28.07.2010 which was processed u/s 143(1). Thereafter, as per information received from the ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur, it was gathered that the assessee has made investment of Rs. 48,80,350/- for construction of residential comples at Nathdwara during the financial year 2009-10 relevant to assessment year

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

3. The facts as culled out from the record are that the return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 was electronically furnished on 25.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 75,62,630/-. The case was accordingly processed u/s 143(1) accepting the returned income. 4 Smt. Pushpa Chhajer Further the case was reopened

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

3) of the Act. While holding so ld. AO also noted that in the immediately preceding i.e. A. Y. 2016-17 assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and on account of 52 Varaha Infra Ltd. assessee's failure to prove the authenticity of books of account, book results were rejected u/s 145(3) and NP rate of 7.23% was applied

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3. The perusal of the trading account shows that there are various plots which have been purchased prior to 2010 and the same are held as closing stock till date. Assessee failed to establish that why those plots acquired prior to Central Circle 2010 were kept as stock without doing any development activities and kept certain other plots as capital

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)

172 (Cochin-Trib.) wherein it has held that the monies in bank account held by the assessee in the fiduciary capacity of trust cannot be held to be unexplained u/s 69A in his hands. (Reference is further invited to written submissions placed before CIT (A) at Pg W.S 49 of PB Vol 1 at Para