DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

47,70,913 NIL Thus, in respect of two parties in whose name advances were shown as outstanding, the appellant duly proved the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction, thus fulfilled necessary ingredients of provisions of sec. 68 of the Act. Even there is no case of attracting the provisions of section

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

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

47,800/- Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. whereas the assessee declared total income of Rs. 7,70,040/- in original return of income filed under section 139 of the IT Act, 1961 on 25.09.2013. Notice under section 143(2) was issued by the AO on 11.07.2017 and asked the assessee to furnish submission. The assessee furnished the requisite

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

47,800/- 8 ITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. whereas the assessee declared total income of Rs. 7,70,040/- in original return of income filed under section 139 of the IT Act, 1961 on 25.09.2013. Notice under section 143(2) was issued by the AO on 11.07.2017 and asked the assessee to furnish

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

47,800/- 8 ITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. whereas the assessee declared total income of Rs. 7,70,040/- in original return of income filed under section 139 of the IT Act, 1961 on 25.09.2013. Notice under section 143(2) was issued by the AO on 11.07.2017 and asked the assessee to furnish

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

v. India Tyre House 72 TTJ 316 (Gau), CIT vs. Heerala Chaganlal 257 ITR 281 (Raj.), CIT vs Ajay Kumar Sharma 259 ITR 240 (Raj.) and Jhalani Timbers v/s CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau). Hence the ld CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,47,01,596/- u/s 68.’’ 11 DCIT-CIRCLE, BHILWARA VS SHRI PRAHALAD

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

v) In the absence of any verifiable evidence, the figures mentioned in the seized\ndocuments are to be treated as actual figures. The appellant has not furnished any\nevidence before the AO in the form of any independent witness who can support the\narguments of the appellant. It is admitted fact that statement of Mr. Bharat Manwani\ncould

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

47,25,282  According to the ld. PCIT, while completing the assessment, the source of acquisition of the mentioned immovable assets has not been examined by the AO. However, the ld. AR submitted that during the course of Proceedings, Fixed assets Chart as well as Interest account were furnished together with the Financial Statements of Year under review and immediately

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

2 relating to addition of Rs. 33,47,041/- in respect of unaccounted interest income on the basis of loose paper found as a result of search u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR argued that during the assessment proceedings the appellant had submitted that he had retracted the statement recorded u/s 132(4) through affidavit before department. Further

ACIT, JODHPUR vs. M/S. HASWANI HANDICRAFTS, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Haswani Handicrafts, Central Circle-2, B-2, Bank Colony, Ummaid Jodhpur. Bhawan Palace Road, Rai Ka Bag, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aabfh 5114 P

47 (RAJ) 5. With reference to the low G. P. rate as compare to the preceding years it is submitted that mainly due to sharp decline in our Export Turnover, and the fixed expenses are all most same as compare to the last year. Moreover the rate of power and fuel, labor, transportation and Raw material has been also increased

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,920/- 2018-19 Rs. 1,29,46,152/- Rs. 4,61,80,190/- 2019-20 Rs. 12,04,359/- Rs. 42,96,065/- Total Investment (In Rs.) Rs. 2,51,44,716/- Rs. 8,96,93,660/- 3.1 For the year under consideration the ld. DVO estimated the value at Rs. 4,61,80,190/- and in the books

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

v) Rs.11281311 being cash deposited in banks accounts of assessee. 3.1 Assessee made its reply vide letter dated 21.11.2017 which is reproduced in the impugned order. After considering the submissions of 4 DCIT vs. U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur- AY: 2013-14 the assessee, learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making the additions as stated in the grounds above

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)

v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswamy Naidu vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594(SC) has observed that the certain factors are relevant for deciding the character of a transaction. These factors and their fulfilment in the case under reference was discussed

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

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)

68 taxmann.com 223 (Bangalore - Trib.) 36. The Ld. AR of the Assessee has also drawn our attention to the fact that no satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act was recorded and no notice u/s 153C of the Act was ever issued, despite the fact that as per the claim of the Assessing Officer, the material relied upon was found during

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

sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings uis 274 and 271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable