M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. from 12—06—2006. Further, with amalgamation it was namedas Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (earlier MGB Gramin Bank). In this case assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 15—12—2009 computing income at Rs. 10,05,32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. from 12—06—2006. Further, with amalgamation it was namedas Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (earlier MGB Gramin Bank). In this case assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 15—12—2009 computing income at Rs. 10,05,32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. from 12—06—2006. Further, with amalgamation it was namedas Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (earlier MGB Gramin Bank). In this case assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 15—12—2009 computing income at Rs. 10,05,32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. from 12—06—2006. Further, with amalgamation it was namedas Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (earlier MGB Gramin Bank). In this case assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 15—12—2009 computing income at Rs. 10,05,32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. from 12—06—2006. Further, with amalgamation it was namedas Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (earlier MGB Gramin Bank). In this case assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 15—12—2009 computing income at Rs. 10,05,32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

section 80IB (11A). v. During the course of assessment proceeding the A.O. has accepted the claim of exempted income of handling and transportation only after detailed scrutiny of receipts and expenditure claimed their against. vi. Your honour has failed to consider that H.O. (Khara) has tractor shown in fixed assets schedule of which w.d.v. is Rs. 2,47,459.00 used

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

47,70,913 NIL Thus, in respect of two parties in whose name advances were shown as outstanding, the appellant duly proved the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction, thus fulfilled necessary ingredients of provisions of sec. 68 of the Act. Even there is no case of attracting the provisions of section

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

47,372/- (37.74%) and net loss of Rs.32,77,48,176/- (11.96%). On being asked it was submitted that contract receipts of the assessee- company during the year declined considerably to Rs.2,46,73.49.728/- from Rs 4,28,36,27,201/- as it was in immediately preceding year. The reasons for this down fall as is explained by the assessee

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

47,500/- Smt. Rukmani 20,00,000/- 1,77,540/- SSP traders 10,00,000/- 1,80,000/- Sahal commodities (P) Ltd 1,21,14,717/- 23,99,270/- Gujrat Agro Processors 2,82,994/- 50,940/- Baraja Kali Bhandar Contoi 2,85,721/- 51,440/- Total 58,36,270/- 5. The Ld. CIT(A) at Para

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of above said three issues

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Pcit-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Pan : Aanpd4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain Department By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

2 Satya Narayan Dhoot (c) AO has allowed set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.71,31,099/- pertaining to M-77 unit, which was not eligible for set off, since this unit commenced operation from current year, i.e., AY 2017-18 only. (d) The AO has allowed benefit of exemption u/s sec. 10(38) on the gains arising on sale

SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

47,871/ vide assessment order dated 28.12.2018. The assessee challenged the impugned assessment order dated 28.12.2018 before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) given partial relief with regard to nature of income and upheld the addition of Rs. 4,75,000/- by treating the same as income from undisclosed sources. Against the order

SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

47,871/ vide assessment order dated 28.12.2018. The assessee challenged the impugned assessment order dated 28.12.2018 before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) given partial relief with regard to nature of income and upheld the addition of Rs. 4,75,000/- by treating the same as income from undisclosed sources. Against the order

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

2. The hearing of the appeal and cross objection was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing and trading of mustard oil and Khal. A survey was carried out at the business premises of the assessee