Showing 40 of 162 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
- Santosh Sanskar Evm Seva Kendra, Jodhpur vs CIT(E), Jaipur
ITA 293/JODH/2019[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2019-20
- M/S. Sunglow Suitings Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara vs ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara
ITA 254/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
- M/S. Gambhirmal Pandya Pvt. Ltd., Kuchaman… vs ITO, Ward-1, Nagaur
ITA 324/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11
- Smt. Bhawana Nagori, Bhilwara vs ITO, Ward-5, Bhilwara
ITA 380/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11Allowed
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 was invalid as it did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following precedent, the penalty was deleted.
- Prakash Chandra Jain, Udaipur vs ITO, Ward-1(1), Udaipur
ITA 75/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11Remanded
The Tribunal noted that the grounds challenging the reopening under Section 148 were not adjudicated by the CIT(A). Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of these legal grounds.
- Santosh Sanskar Evm Seva Kendra, Jodhpur vs CIT(E), Jaipur
ITA 292/JODH/2019[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2019-20
- Mahaveer Chand, Jodhpur vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur
ITA 90/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16
- Jagjit Singh Arora, Udaipur vs ITO, Ward-1(1), Udaipur
ITA 15/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Partly Allowed
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s 5.50% NPR was not justified as it ignored the prior year's lower NPR and the increase in turnover. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply an average NPR of 4.4% based on the assessee's declared NPRs for the preceding two assessment years.
- Shri Mahaveer Singh, Jodhpur vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur
ITA 89/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16
- Smt. Divya Jain, Kishangarh vs Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur
ITA 62/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
- M/S. Banarsi Marble Stone Private Limited… vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur
ITA 365/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12Allowed
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.
- Shri Rajendra Kumar Baheti, Bhilwara vs ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara
ITA 5/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
- Prince Art Exporter, Jodhpur vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur
ITA 91/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16
- M/S. Banarsi Marble Stone Private Limited… vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur
ITA 366/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13
- Harish Gaurav, Udaipur vs DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur
ITA 33/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
- M/S. Banarsi Marble Stone Private Limited… vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur
ITA 364/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11
- M/S. Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd… vs ACIT, Circle-TDS, Udaipur
ITA 344/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
- Adarsh Synthetics Pvt.Ltd., Bhilwara vs ITO, Ward-1, Bhilwara
ITA 332/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14
- ITO, Ward-1, Bhilwara vs M/S. Bright Style Fabrics Pvt. Ltd…
ITA 287/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
- Shri Shankar Lal Jat, Bhilwara vs ITO, Ward-4, Bhilwara
ITA 472/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11
- Chhoga Lal Jain (Maroo), Udaipur vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur
ITA 128/JODH/2019[2004-05]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2004-05
- Chhoga Lal Jain (Maroo), Udaipur vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur
ITA 129/JODH/2019[2006-07]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2006-07
- Leela Devi Porwal (Maroo), Udaipur vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur
ITA 130/JODH/2019[2004-05]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2004-05
- Leela Devi Porwal (Maroo), Udaipur vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur
ITA 131/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11
- Vijay Jain (Maroo), Udaipur vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur
ITA 132/JODH/2019[2004-05]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2004-05
- Ankit Dawda, Dungarpur vs ITO, Dungarpur
ITA 134/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
- Dr. Sanjay Makawna, Jodhpur vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur
ITA 144/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
- Ram Kishore Jangid, Jodhpur vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur
ITA 149/JODH/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2008-09
- Ram Kishore Jangid, Jodhpur vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur
ITA 150/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10
- Ram Kishore Jangid, Jodhpur vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur
ITA 151/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11
- Mahesh Chand Vijayvargiya, Bhilwara vs ITO, Ward-5, Bhilwara
ITA 202/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
- M/S. Mahendra Singh Dharampal & Co., Udaipur vs DCIT Central Circle-2, Udaipur
ITA 217/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
- Shri Vardhman Jain Bhagyodaya Trust… vs CIT(Eemption), Jaipur
ITA 218/JODH/2019[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2018-19
- M/S. Sam Global, Bhilwara vs ITO, TDS, Bhilwara
ITA 250/JODH/2019[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2018-19
- M/S. Sam Global, Bhilwara vs ITO, TDS, Bhilwara
ITA 251/JODH/2019[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2019-20
- Shri Mahendra Singh Charan, Jodhpur vs ITO, Wad-2(2), Jodhpur
ITA 159/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed26 Nov 2019AY 2011-12Partly Allowed
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- for land purchase, finding sufficient cash balance in the assessee's cash book. The estimated business income was reduced to Rs. 1,20,000/- due to lack of basis for the original estimation.
- Shri Amar Singh Jain, Bhilwara vs ITO, Ward-1, Bhilwara
ITA 387/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Nov 2019AY 2014-15Allowed
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 did not specify the exact charge against the assessee (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Following precedent, the Tribunal found this to be a non-application of mind by the AO, rendering the penalty unsustainable.
- Vivek Vyas, Balotra vs ITO, Balotra
ITA 45/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Nov 2019AY 2009-10
- Renu Devi Mewara, Jodhpur vs ACIT, Circle-2, Jodhpur
ITA 69/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed26 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
- Deputy Inspector General Station… vs JCIT (TDS), Range, Jodhpur
ITA 302/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Partly Allowed
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E via intimation under Section 200A for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A was prospective. The late fees levied before this date were directed to be deleted.
