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

undisclosed income and the reasonability of the explanation so\noffered by the Assessee keeping into account the facts and circumstances of the\nrelevant case. In fact, if we look at the provisions of section 133A, clause (iii) of\nsub-section (3) provides that an income tax authority acting under this section\nshall record the statement of any person which

ITO, WARD, PHALODI, PHALODI vs. M/S RAMA ALLURE LLP, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

section 68 provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year it 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 AO, not satisfactory

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

income i.e. foundation of belief was undisclosed source of investment (relevant provision of section 69A of the Act) and finally made the addition in the order in respect of unexplained cash credits u/s 68

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

income i.e. foundation of belief was undisclosed source of investment (relevant provision of section 69A of the Act) and finally made the addition in the order in respect of unexplained cash credits u/s 68

BANSI LAL KUMHAR,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

undisclosed income and it should have been\nassessed either under the head income from house property or under the head\nincome from business. Under no circumstances can such income be treated as\nundisclosed income and assessed under the head income from other sources by\ninvoking provisions of section 68

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

undisclosed income for a\nconsideration or commission. It is relevant to mention here that the prices have increased\nmany fold times as soon as the period of one year has expired so as to avail the benefit of\nexempt long term gain. There is no justifiable indicator such as some significant business\ntransaction in the case of M/s. Safal Herbs

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

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

undisclosed business income on estimate basis. However while making the additionshe has not invoked or applied any provisions of law while making the addition. The ld. AO has not stated under what provision of law he has made the addition and under what head whether, under business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed income invested in construction of hospital building at Rs.1,01,00,000/- but included income of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in his return of income). (ii). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. AO has erred on facts and in law in invoking provision of section 115BBE of the Act on the professional income

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

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of unaccounted cash loans\nand added to the total income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2019-20.\nPenalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) are also initiated for misreporting of interest income\nearned on advancement of cash loan.\n(Addition of Rs. 33,47,041/-)”\n(Emphasis supplied)\n3.4. That

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credits – Assessment year 1979-\n80 – In relevant period assessee had tendered notes of Rs. 1000 denomination\nvaluing Rs. 2 lakhs for encashment – There was no dispute about source of money\nnor about fact that there was sufficient balance on date of deposit – Assessing\nOfficer, however, made additions of part of amount

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

undisclosed income and invoking provisions of section 115 BBE of Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the appellant has preferred appeal before the ld. CIT appeal who has confirmed the addition by endorsing the finding of the AO by observing that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to produce the books of account

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

undisclosed income and invoking provisions of section 115 BBE of Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the appellant has preferred appeal before the ld. CIT appeal who has confirmed the addition by endorsing the finding of the AO by observing that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to produce the books of account

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

undisclosed sources u/s 68 of the Act which has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). In this case, it is noticed that the assessee had 5 ITA 8/JODH/2020 SHRI DHANPAT RAJ KHATRI, HUF VS ITO, JAISALMER produced relevant documents and details of income from service a/c, e-banking to direct tax, NSDL PAN, Commercial Tax, House Rent Receipts A/c, Agricultural

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

undisclosed\nbusiness income on estimate basis. However while making the additionshe has not\ninvoked or applied any provisions of law while making the addition. The ld. AO has not\nstated under what provision of law he has made the addition and under what head\nwhether, under business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

undisclosed\nbusiness income on estimate basis. However while making the additionshe has not\ninvoked or applied any provisions of law while making the addition. The ld. AO has not\nstated under what provision of law he has made the addition and under what head\nwhether, under business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain

DR. MANISH CHHAPARWAL ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

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

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

section 68 to 69D, also needs to be understood in the same manner, as attempt to evade tax/penalty/ interest etc. In view of the above facts, the contention of the appellant is not found acceptable and the unexplained cash has been rightly taxed by the AO u/s 115BBE of the Act.” 7. The Ld. Council has reiterated the submissions made

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

undisclosed\nbusiness income on estimate basis. However while making the additionshe has not\ninvoked or applied any provisions of law while making the addition. The ld. AO has not\nstated under what provision of law he has made the addition and under what head\nwhether, under business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain

MANJU GOYAL,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

68 to 69D of the Income Tax Act. The source of the income is well-explained and supported by statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings. 5. As on the date of the survey (23.08.2016), the amended provisions of Section 115BBE were not in force, and the surrendered income was accepted by the Revenue authorities as business income subject

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 251(1)(a) itself provides\n251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the 22[* * *] 30[Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the\nfollowing powers—\n(a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the\nassessment33 34[* * *];\nAnd in the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2016-17 the assessee has not filed the appeal before