SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

50,001 to Rs. 15,00,000 25 per cent 7. Above Rs. 15,00,000 30 per cent: Provided that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous year and other provisions of this

SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

50,001 to Rs. 15,00,000 25 per cent 7. Above Rs. 15,00,000 30 per cent: Provided that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous year and other provisions of this

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 43(1) of the Act and on the whole of the cost of windmill, the depreciation claim is eligible which has been rightly claimed and allowed by the Assessing officer after due examination and verification in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Saurashtra Cements (supra) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case

THAR HEAT TRANSFER EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthar Heat Transfer Equipments Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur. B-13 To 16, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aacct 7832 L Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari, Ca Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jodhpur Dated 20/03/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Invoking Section 263 & The Setting Aside Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. The Order Made U/S 143(3) Cannot Be Said To Erroneous Or Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Was Made After Duly Examining The Issue Relating To Capital Gains & The Said Order Cannot Be Said To Be Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Or Revenue. The Allocation Of Value Of Sale Of Land Was On The Basis Of Valuation Adopted By The Stamp Authorities & Was Also Verifiable. The Ld. Pr. Cit Had Erred In Observing That The Appellant Had Taken The Higher Value Of Agriculture Land. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter, Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

depreciable asset the computation of gain on transfer of such asset was made as per section 50 of the Income

SHREE RAM COLLOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

section 142(1) asking for the details. Further, the Ld. PCIT issued the notice dated 09/01/2024 3 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited and asked for the details from assessee about the claim of depreciation on the leasehold property amount to Rs.59,98,438/-. The relevant paragraph of the notice is extracted below:- “1. On perusal of the case

SHRI DEVKRIPA TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, BHILWARA CIRCLE, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

50% of depreciation claimed by the assessee. The AO also disallowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from out of other expenses, since some of the expenses were supported by self made vouchers. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who concurred with the view taken

NAVKAR WOLLENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BIKANER vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenavkar Woollens Private Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Rani Bazar, Bikaner, H.O. Income Tax, Circle – 3 Bikaner, Bikaner Bikaner - 334001 Pan No. Aabcn 9287 G Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr & Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2014-15 Challenging Therein Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 2,34,04,480/- On Account Of Difference Between The Fair Market Value & The Issue Price Of The Equity Shares By Questioning The Method Of Valuation.

Section 147 based on information that 51392 shares were issued at the premium of Rs. 120 each by over value assessed particularly in violation of Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules. The AO alleged that while computing the fair market value (FMV) of shares the appellant took the market value of land at Rs. 2,45,50,000/- under

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

50,589/- out of Rs.58,05,476/- disallowed by ld. AO. 4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose

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

50,589/- out of Rs.58,05,476/- disallowed by ld. AO. 4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose

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

50,589/- out of Rs.58,05,476/- disallowed by ld. AO. 4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose

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

50,589/- out of Rs.58,05,476/- disallowed by ld. AO. 4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose

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

50,589/- out of Rs.58,05,476/- disallowed by ld. AO. 4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose

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

50,589/- out of Rs.58,05,476/- disallowed by ld. AO. 4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 145 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). Now we turn to the application of the profit rate. There is no dispute about the fact that the profit rate declared by the assessee in the instant case is better than all the preceding years be it GP or NP rate. The Coordinate Jodhpur Bench

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 145 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). Now we turn to the application of the profit rate. There is no dispute about the fact that the profit rate declared by the assessee in the instant case is better than all the preceding years be it GP or NP rate. The Coordinate Jodhpur Bench

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

50,000/- and list of all creditors with opening and closing balances which were ignored by the AO. Therefore, the condition for treating the same as income of the assessee under section 41(1) is that the liability ceased to exist as at the end of the financial year relevant to the year under consideration. The AO has not written

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

50,523.31 Investment in Angel Granite For Capital Contribution 209,15,000.00 194,55,000.00 Total 20,18,85,103.31 168305523.31 Share Capital 558,06,500 558,06,500 Reserves and Surplus 9075,80,125 7930,64,656 Total 963386625 848871156 Investment in terms of% 20.96% 19.82 Thus, even on merits based on this information the PCIT has not commented

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

50 of the order, relying on the decision of Commissioner. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co2018 (9) SCC 1, has held that (iii) If the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is given to the subject and there is nothing unjust in a taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch