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\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

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

68, 69, 69A to 69D of the\nAct. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made\non loose sheets of papers unless some independent and corroborative materials to\nprove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or\nunaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. Further the\nseized documents in the case

RITU ROAD LINES,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-02, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.34/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ritu Road Lines, The Dcit, Plot No.12-14, Nakoda V Central Circle-2, Jodhpur. Industrial Area, Basni, S Jodhpur – 342001. Pan: Aaafr9440D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/11/2023

90,140/-)” 4 Ritu Road Lines [A] 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) upheld the additions. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We will discuss each addition hereonwards. Addition

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

68 to 71/Jodh/2022 3 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 DIVIDEND INCOME AND CAN SHOW THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(d) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER MORE IT WAS ALSO BEING HELD THAT THE WORDS THIS SECTION IN RELATION TO ANY CO- OPERATIVE BANK AS USED

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

68 to 71/Jodh/2022 3 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 DIVIDEND INCOME AND CAN SHOW THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(d) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER MORE IT WAS ALSO BEING HELD THAT THE WORDS THIS SECTION IN RELATION TO ANY CO- OPERATIVE BANK AS USED

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

68 to 71/Jodh/2022 3 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 DIVIDEND INCOME AND CAN SHOW THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(d) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER MORE IT WAS ALSO BEING HELD THAT THE WORDS THIS SECTION IN RELATION TO ANY CO- OPERATIVE BANK AS USED

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

68 to 71/Jodh/2022 3 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 DIVIDEND INCOME AND CAN SHOW THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(d) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER MORE IT WAS ALSO BEING HELD THAT THE WORDS THIS SECTION IN RELATION TO ANY CO- OPERATIVE BANK AS USED

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

90,000/- shown in the books of account as cash\nin hand. The assessee offered, for surrender, an amount of Rs. 10 lacs on account\nof stock not entered in the books of account, relating to debtors. The assessee\nfurther offered an amount of Rs.21 lacs representing the amount entered in the\nbooks of account towards stock as against

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

90 ITR 412 (Mad.)\nLakshmi bai v. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 804 (Mysore)\nC.T. Rajagopal v. State of Mysore (1972) 86 ITR 814.\nS.K. Manekia v. CST (1977) 39 STC 426 (Bom.)\nCST v. ShrimalSakhar Chand (1984) 57 STC 224, 235 (Bom.)\n1.21 The AO failed to prove with any evidence that statutory notice u/s 148 was served\nupon

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

90 ITR 412 (Mad.)\nLakshmi bai v. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 804 (Mysore)\nC.T. Rajagopal v. State of Mysore (1972) 86 ITR 814.\nS.K. Manekia v. CST (1977) 39 STC 426 (Bom.)\nCST v. ShrimalSakhar Chand (1984) 57 STC 224, 235 (Bom.)\n1.21 The AO failed to prove with any evidence that statutory notice u/s 148 was served\nupon

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

90 ITR 412 (Mad.)\nLakshmi bai v. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 804 (Mysore)\nC.T. Rajagopal v. State of Mysore (1972) 86 ITR 814.\nS.K. Manekia v. CST (1977) 39 STC 426 (Bom.)\nCST v. ShrimalSakhar Chand (1984) 57 STC 224, 235 (Bom.)\n1.20 The AO failed to prove with any evidence that statutory notice u/s 148 was served\nupon

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

90 ITR 412 (Mad.)\nLakshmi bai v. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 804 (Mysore)\nC.T. Rajagopal v. State of Mysore (1972) 86 ITR 814.\nS.K. Manekia v. CST (1977) 39 STC 426 (Bom.)\nCST v. ShrimalSakhar Chand (1984) 57 STC 224, 235 (Bom.)\n1.21 The AO failed to prove with any evidence that statutory notice u/s 148 was served\nupon

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

90 ITR 412 (Mad.)\nLakshmi bai v. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 804 (Mysore)\nC.T. Rajagopal v. State of Mysore (1972) 86 ITR 814.\nS.K. Manekia v. CST (1977) 39 STC 426 (Bom.)\nCST v. ShrimalSakhar Chand (1984) 57 STC 224, 235 (Bom.)\n1.21\nThe AO failed to prove with any evidence that statutory notice u/s 148 was served\nupon

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

GULAB DEVI KHANT,BANSWARA vs. ACIT, , CHITTORGARH.

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainismt. Gulab Devi Khant, Vs The Acit, W/O Late Shri Natwar Lal Chittorgarh Khanat, Khantwara, Banswara (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,000/- which included the addition of unexplained new cash creditors of Rs. 15,90,000/- and short term capital gain of Rs. 64,918/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 5,47,700/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the matter was taken

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