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

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

68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno 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

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

RAIS AHMED MEWAFAROSH,DUNGARPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

85,064/- 41,25, 133/- 11.03 8,69,882/- 2.33 2014-15 4,37,93,728/- 54,20,760/- 12.38

RAIS AHMED MEWAFAROSH,DUNGARPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

85,064/- 41,25, 133/- 11.03 8,69,882/- 2.33 2014-15 4,37,93,728/- 54,20,760/- 12.38

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

85,790/-. In the assessment order the AO made addition of Rs. 11,59,789/- u/s 68 of the Act towards unexplained cash deposited in the bank accounts. The present appeal has been preferred against the said assessment order. 4. The AO observed that the explanation filed by the assessee has been duly considered but not found satisfactory. The assessee

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

68 holding as under: "The submission of the assessee has been carefully considered but the same is not found satisfactory in the eyes of law. The assessee claimed that he has having business relation with these companies and fund transferred to M/s India Nivesh Securities Pvt. Ltd were received from these companies. The assessee has also claimed that funds

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

DHANPAT RAJ KHATRI - HUF,JAISALMER vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs The Ito Khatri Pada, Jaisalmer Jaisalmer

Section 68 is discretionary and discretion must be used as per law and decided judgements and not according to the presumption. Since the assessee has submitted the entire details, books of accounts etc. and the AO did not reject the books of account of the assessee, hence the addition so made on presumption basis does not support in view

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 28(iv) would be inapplicable—Secondly, consistent view had been taken in favour of assessee, starting with A.Y. 1992-93, that benefits under advance licences or under duty entitlement pass book do not represent real income of assessee—Thus, there was no reason to take a different view unless there are very convincing reasons, none of which

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 28(iv) would be inapplicable—Secondly, consistent view had been taken in favour of assessee, starting with A.Y. 1992-93, that benefits under advance licences or under duty entitlement pass book do not represent real income of assessee—Thus, there was no reason to take a different view unless there are very convincing reasons, none of which

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 28(iv) would be inapplicable—Secondly, consistent view had been taken in favour of assessee, starting with A.Y. 1992-93, that benefits under advance licences or under duty entitlement pass book do not represent real income of assessee—Thus, there was no reason to take a different view unless there are very convincing reasons, none of which

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 28(iv) would be inapplicable—Secondly, consistent view had been taken in favour of assessee, starting with A.Y. 1992-93, that benefits under advance licences or under duty entitlement pass book do not represent real income of assessee—Thus, there was no reason to take a different view unless there are very convincing reasons, none of which

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 28(iv) would be inapplicable—Secondly, consistent view had been taken in favour of assessee, starting with A.Y. 1992-93, that benefits under advance licences or under duty entitlement pass book do not represent real income of assessee—Thus, there was no reason to take a different view unless there are very convincing reasons, none of which

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 28(iv) would be inapplicable—Secondly, consistent view had been taken in favour of assessee, starting with A.Y. 1992-93, that benefits under advance licences or under duty entitlement pass book do not represent real income of assessee—Thus, there was no reason to take a different view unless there are very convincing reasons, none of which

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 28(iv) would be inapplicable—Secondly, consistent view had been taken in favour of assessee, starting with A.Y. 1992-93, that benefits under advance licences or under duty entitlement pass book do not represent real income of assessee—Thus, there was no reason to take a different view unless there are very convincing reasons, none of which