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

54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act\nduring survey proceedings.\n2.1\nFurther, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.\n19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year\nunder consideration

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

54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act\nduring survey proceedings.\n2.1\nFurther, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.\n19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year\nunder consideration

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

54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act\nduring survey proceedings.\n2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.\n19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year\nunder consideration

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

54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act\nduring survey proceedings.\n2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.\n19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year\nunder consideration

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

54,88,102/-. 3. Brief facts as noted from the statement of facts are that assessee is a dealer for Tata Motors Ltd. for Sales, Service and sale for Commercial Vehicles and Passenger Cars. For the year under consideration, assessee did not file its return of income. Since, there was no response to the letter No.719 dated 15.07.2016 issued

KRISHAN LAL OM PRAKASH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blekrishan Lal Om Prakash Shop No. 48, Nai Dhan Mandi, Padampur - 335041. Pan No. Aabfk1565H Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

2. There is a delay of 54 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR explained that the short delay because of compilation of document and error in uploading on ITBA portal may be condoned. The Ld. Addl. CIT (DR) ha no objection. Accordingly, short delay of 54 days in filing the appeal is condoned and thus appeal is admitted

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS) (2018) 54 CCH 0116 Jaipur Trib Held: Tribunal noted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin (supra) has considered the issue of limitation for passing the order where the Statute does not provide any limitation for such order in para 6 as under, time limit for completing the assessment

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS) (2018) 54 CCH 0116 Jaipur Trib Held: Tribunal noted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin (supra) has considered the issue of limitation for passing the order where the Statute does not provide any limitation for such order in para 6 as under, time limit for completing the assessment

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS) (2018) 54 CCH 0116 Jaipur Trib Held: Tribunal noted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin (supra) has considered the issue of limitation for passing the order where the Statute does not provide any limitation for such order in para 6 as under, time limit for completing the assessment

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year