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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

68 of the Act. Even there is no case of attracting the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that these creditors were for supply of fixed assets during the FY 2013-14, whom the payments had duly been made in the FY 2014-15 and 2016-17. The appellant has established that there

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

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

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 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

MITHILA DRUGS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradmithila Drugs Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, F-70, Road No.2, Circle-1, 102A, Mewar Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub Madri, Udaipur-313003. City Centre, Savina, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaccm6767B Assessee By None (W/S) Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2023 Date Of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement

section 80, business loss as on 31.03.2015, i.e. Rs. 1,42,68,828/- cannot be carried forward. (B)OUR SUBMISSION

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

80,000/-. The said scrip was sold in the financial year 2014-15 for Rs,.1,58,67,077/- through the broker, Shri Suresh Rathi. The assessee claimed exemption of the LTCG of Rs.1,55,87,077/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. The Ld.AO has treated the entire transaction as bogus and, therefore, he added back the total sale

DCIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN GOYAL, FARIDABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotedcit Vs. Shri Brij Bhushan Circle, Pali., Goyal, Jodhpur. House No. 331, Sector Rajasthan. 16A, Faridabad, Haryana.-121002 Pan/Gir No. : Aawpg8405D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 80 IC of the Act On perusal of the Financial statements, the Assessing Officer(AO) found that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IC(2) of the Act of Rs. 1,68

CHANDAN SINGH,POKRAN vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

68 of the IT Act under the head Income from Other Sources. The assessee has concealed the particulars of income, therefore, penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is initiated. 5. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- “7 I have

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

80,000/- in his current account. Out of the total cash deposits, an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was deposited on 29.11.2016. The AO went on to add Rs.20,00,000/- deposited by the appellant as unexplained u/s 69A and completed the assessment at an income of Rs.21,74,540/-. 4. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee

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)

80,00,000/- was added to income of the assessee under the provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 @ 60% by the ld. AO. 3.3 Ld. AO also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

80 HHC of the income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such report along with the return and filed it subsequently but before completion of the assessment, it would not be fatal. In the case of "CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation" reported in [2002] 254 ITR 61 (Punj. & Har.) (FB), it was further held

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

80 HHC of the income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such report along with the return and filed it subsequently but before completion of the assessment, it would not be fatal. In the case of "CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation" reported in [2002] 254 ITR 61 (Punj. & Har.) (FB), it was further held

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

80 HHC of the income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such report along with the return and filed it subsequently but before completion of the assessment, it would not be fatal. In the case of "CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation" reported in [2002] 254 ITR 61 (Punj. & Har.) (FB), it was further held

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

Section 68 of the Act. Apart from making sweeping statements, which have been found to be factually erroneous, no objective material has been brought on record by the Ld. Pr. CIT to implicate the assessee or the AO per se of being guilty of non-enquiry. We further find that when confronted with the reasons

M/S. RASIK PRIYA RESORTS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Jodh/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., V Of Income Tax, 11, Mangal Complex, S. Central Circle-2, Udaipur. Saifan Choraha, Bedla Road, Udaipur. Pan: Aafcr 5546 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Rakesh Lodha – Ca Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

80,168/- in A.Y.2011-12 and Rs.1,93,592/- for A.Y.2012-13. He has heavy borrowings. The ld.AR has not filed any details before usto prove creditworthiness of Mr.Mangilar Gurjar. The ld.AR has not filed any documents to rebut findings of ld.CIT(A). M/s.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. Ltd.,[A] 3.1 Mr.Naresh Trivedi has also not filed any Return of Income

M/S. RASIK PRIYA RESORTS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Jodh/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., V Of Income Tax, 11, Mangal Complex, S. Central Circle-2, Udaipur. Saifan Choraha, Bedla Road, Udaipur. Pan: Aafcr 5546 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Rakesh Lodha – Ca Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

80,168/- in A.Y.2011-12 and Rs.1,93,592/- for A.Y.2012-13. He has heavy borrowings. The ld.AR has not filed any details before usto prove creditworthiness of Mr.Mangilar Gurjar. The ld.AR has not filed any documents to rebut findings of ld.CIT(A). M/s.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. Ltd.,[A] 3.1 Mr.Naresh Trivedi has also not filed any Return of Income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

80 Taxman 89 (SC)/[1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC)/[1995] 125 CTR 124 (SC)[28-03- 1995] held as under- "It is, no doubt, true that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the department to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt