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

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

68. This will be violation of the binding order of the jurisdictional High Court and will be a case of contempt of court. (vii) The assessee has not received any amount or paid any amount in respect of the regular and recorded shares trading with Seema Securities, then the AO cannot estimate commission paid u/s 69C amounting

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

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

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of unaccounted cash loans and added to the total income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2019-20. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) are also initiated for misreporting of interest income earned on advancement of cash loan. (Addition of Rs. 33,47,041/-)” (Emphasis supplied) 3.4. That on the basis

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

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

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

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

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

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 251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the 22[* * *] 30[Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment33 34[* * *]; And in the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2016-17 the assessee has not filed the appeal before

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

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

undisclosed income and added to the total income and taxed accordingly. In response to the same, vide reply dated 29.12.2019, the assessee has submitted as below: “No material or paper was found during the course of search to indicate any such purchase. The assessee is having large fleet of vehicles and regularly purchases are being made. Simply on the basis

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

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

68 could be made. (ii) CIT and Anr V/s Lancy Constructions (2017) 295 CTR (Kar) 454Assessment u/s 153A computation of undisclosed income - When there were no incriminating documents found during the course of search – If assessment is allowed to be reopened on the basis of search, in which no incriminating material had been found, and merely on the basis