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

92,963/- 50,88,999/- 10.30 5,24,975/- 2016-17 6,34, 1,436/- 89, 76,434/- 14.16 5,

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

92,963/- 50,88,999/- 10.30 5,24,975/- 2016-17 6,34, 1,436/- 89, 76,434/- 14.16 5,

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

92,980/- by making addition of Rs. 68,95,000/- as unexplained cash deposits in bank account u/s 69A of the Act. 3. It was submitted that the assessee only source of income is rental income which was received through banking channel after deduction of TDS and duly disclosed in the return of income. However due to sudden death

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

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

92,15,998/- 3. Depreciation Rs. 23,68,58,343/- Total Rs.97,05,59,476/- Net profit/total income Rs.16,45,86,794/- (-) 39 Varaha Infra Ltd. The net result of computation of net profit is loss. The result of computation of income made by Ld ITAT in respect of AY 2016-17 was also in loss as is evident from

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

92,846/- u/s 80IA, the assessee has shown taxable income of Rs.26,23,150/-. 11. It was submitted that as per provisions of Section 80IA(6) of the Act and Rule 18BBE of the Income-tax Rules, deduction is available on the profit of housing or other activities, which are integral part of a highway project and for claiming

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAMARPAN SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. , BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Samarpan Synthetics Pvt. Circle, Ltd., Bhilwara 54, Bhilwara Textiles Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara-311001, Rahasthan. Pan No. Aahcs 4365 G

section can be made if the following conditions are satisfied:- (i) Assessee has incurred the expenditure. (ii) Offered no explanation about the source or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. In the present case, assessee has not incurred any expenditure on purchase from these six parties. This fact was cross verified by the AO by taking statement

MOHAN LAL TALESARA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.316/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

68,850/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). But the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. I.T.A. No.316/Jodh/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4. The ld. AR filed the written submissions which are kept in the record. The ld. AR vehemently argued and placed

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHAHNAVAJ NAJIK L.H OF LATE SH. IQBAL NAJIK, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Acit Vs Shri Shahnavaj Najik Circle-Pali L/H Of Late Shri Iqbal Najik 173, Ashapura Nagar, Pali (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpn 5861 D

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO also disallowed interest expenditure of Rs.5,83,397/- claimed thereon. Thus the total addition aggregated to Rs.80,83,397/-. 3. Before the Ld CIT(A) the assessee filed evidences to show that the lender has filed suit against the assessee for recovery of loan amount. By admitting those additional evidences

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

68—CIT(A) confirmed reassessment and addition made by AO of share capital\nand unexplained cash credit—Held, notice u/s 148 could be quashed if ‘belief' was not bona fide\nor one based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information—Basis of belief should be\ndiscernible from material on record which was available with AO when he recorded reasons—\nThere

THAR HEAT TRANSFER EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthar Heat Transfer Equipments Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur. B-13 To 16, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aacct 7832 L Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari, Ca Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jodhpur Dated 20/03/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Invoking Section 263 & The Setting Aside Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. The Order Made U/S 143(3) Cannot Be Said To Erroneous Or Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Was Made After Duly Examining The Issue Relating To Capital Gains & The Said Order Cannot Be Said To Be Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Or Revenue. The Allocation Of Value Of Sale Of Land Was On The Basis Of Valuation Adopted By The Stamp Authorities & Was Also Verifiable. The Ld. Pr. Cit Had Erred In Observing That The Appellant Had Taken The Higher Value Of Agriculture Land. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter, Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

92,518/-. Subsequently a rectification order was passed u/s 154 on 26.4.2018 rectifying the income to Rs. 35,87,112/-. 3. The assessee during the year had sold certain industrial land, factory building and agriculture land. On sale of land being long term capital gain was shown, and on factory building and plant and machinery being depreciable asset the computation

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

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

92,90,047 which reduced the addition to Rs. 57,54,66,185. 11. The amounts of gross assets/investments and current account negative balance and net value of assets is clearly verifiable from the BWR Trust Financial statements and the CIT(A) has taken up the figures duly according to the books of accounts maintained by the Trust, thus there

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

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

Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature at this stage, both the grounds are dismissed. 6. The ground No. 7 raised by the appellant is regarding charging of interest amounting to Rs. 24,49.836/- u/s 234B of the Act. This being consequential in nature, the AO is directed to allow relief

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,920/- 2018-19 Rs. 1,29,46,152/- Rs. 4,61,80,190/- 2019-20 Rs. 12,04,359/- Rs. 42,96,065/- Total Investment (In Rs.) Rs. 2,51,44,716/- Rs. 8,96,93,660/- 3.1 For the year under consideration the ld. DVO estimated the value at Rs. 4,61,80,190/- and in the books

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

68,250/-. Search and seizure proceedings were conducted at the residential and business premises of ‘Gupta group of Sri Ganganagar & Bikaner’ on 11.08.2016. Notices were issued and assessee filed her reply. The A.O. after making detailed enquiry and verification passed assessment order on 20/12/2018 assessing total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,39,63,530/- by making various disallowances