ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

68 is deleted.” As we have already discussed this issue in detail in foregoing paragraphs of this order, therefore, in that eventuality, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. Accordingly, we uphold the same. 15. Ground No. 4 of the appeal relates to challenging the order

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

5,00,000) may not be treated as unexplained credits and may not be added to his total income as per Provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016 has submitted as under: - o"kZ ds nkSjku fy;k x;k Unsecured Loans

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

5,00,000) may not be treated as unexplained credits and may not be added to his total income as per Provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016 has submitted as under: - o"kZ ds nkSjku fy;k x;k Unsecured Loans

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

21,961/-, we find that this is a fact that no section is mentioned by the AO or CIT (A) for making this addition and for this reason alone, the addition is bad in law as per the tribunal order cited by the learned AR Of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

21,961/-, we find that this is a fact that no section is mentioned by the AO or CIT (A) for making this addition and for this reason alone, the addition is bad in law as per the tribunal order cited by the learned AR Of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

21,961/-, we find that this is a fact that no section is mentioned by the AO or CIT (A) for making this addition and for this reason alone, the addition is bad in law as per the tribunal order cited by the learned AR Of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

21,961/-, we find that this is a fact that no section is mentioned by the AO or CIT (A) for making this addition and for this reason alone, the addition is bad in law as per the tribunal order cited by the learned AR Of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

21,961/-, we find that this is a fact that no section is mentioned by the AO or CIT (A) for making this addition and for this reason alone, the addition is bad in law as per the tribunal order cited by the learned AR Of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

21. In conclusion, considering the totality of facts, corroborative evidence, and binding judicial precedents, we hold that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were entirely justified in treating the share capital receipts as unexplained income and unexplained expenditure under Sections 68 and 69C respectively. The grounds raised by the assessee are devoid of merit and are therefore dismissed

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

21. In conclusion, considering the totality of facts, corroborative evidence, and binding judicial precedents, we hold that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were entirely justified in treating the share capital receipts as unexplained income and unexplained expenditure under Sections 68 and 69C respectively. The grounds raised by the assessee are devoid of merit and are therefore dismissed

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the act and and added to the income of the assessee. In addition to the cash-credits, the AO has further made addition of Rs. 8,56,000/- u/s 69A of the by treating the deposit in the name of Sh. Mohan Ram Choudhary and Smt.Tulchi Devi of Rs. 5

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

5-11), held that: "Section 263, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether where an assessment has been reopened under section 147 in relation to a particular ground or in relation to certain specified grounds and subsequent to passing of order

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

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

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief

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

5,91,76,693/-\nin A.Y. 2014-15, Rs.5,91,76,693/- or 1,64,40,157/- in A.Y. 2015-16 and\nRs.1,14,89,554/- in A.Y. 2016-17 on account of alleged underreporting sales on estimate\nbasis without invoking the provision of sec.145(3) and without rejecting the books of\naccounts, also erred in not considering the material

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

5,91,76,693/-\nin A.Y. 2014-15, Rs.5,91,76,693/- or 1,64,40,157/- in A.Y. 2015-16 and\nRs.1,14,89,554/- in A.Y. 2016-17 on account of alleged underreporting sales on estimate\nbasis without invoking the provision of sec.145(3) and without rejecting the books of\naccounts, also erred in not considering the material

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

5,91,76,693/-\nin A.Y. 2014-15, Rs.5,91,76,693/- or 1,64,40,157/- in A.Y. 2015-16 and\nRs.1,14,89,554/- in A.Y. 2016-17 on account of alleged underreporting sales on estimate\nbasis without invoking the provision of sec.145(3) and without rejecting the books of\naccounts, also erred in not considering the material

LIFE CARE HOSPITAL,SIROHI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 was not applicable.  [2024] 158 taxmann.com 655(Chandigarh-Trib.) [23.01.2024] Where during course of survey, assessee surrendered excess stock, cash and receivables and offered same to tax as business income, however, AO treated said surrendered amount as unexplained investment under sections 69 and 69A, since it emerged that source of income of assessee was from its business operations

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

Section 144 as a best judgment assessment owing to the failure on the part of the assessee to file its return of income and getting its books of accounts audited. The gross receipts of Rs.25,54,88,102 are also not in dispute which has been 9 DCIT vs. U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur- AY: 2013-14 adopted