M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

220 dated 31/05/1997 and genuineness of payment and identity of payees were also not in doubt- vide DCIT V/S Mayur sales (2000) 68 TTJ (JP-TRIB) 731. 5. Provisions of Sec 40A (3) do not apply in respect of an expenditure which is not to be claimed as deduction u/s 30 to 37/of 1.T. Act, 1961. In the instant

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

220];\n(iv) The material or information found in the course of survey proceeding\ncould not be a basis for making any addition in the block assessment, vide\ndecision of this Court in T.C.(A) No.2620 of 2006 (between Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v. S.Ajit Kumar); [2008] 300 ITR 153 (Mad)\n(v) Finally, the word \"may\" used in Section

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

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

68,62,780, i.e. the income which has escaped assessment as per the reasons recorded. Neither the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment nor any other material on record demonstrate that the issue relating to the claim of deduction under s.801A of the Act was ever a subject matter of dispute in the re-assessment proceedings either at the time