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

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

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

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. 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. 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

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

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

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

depreciation on motor vehicles owned by the assessee against the income received from partnership firm which is assessable to tax under the head Profits and gains of business or profession. 7.6 At this juncture, it is interesting to note that, at per Para No. 1.4 of the written submissions (supra), the assessee stated that he is a partner in certain

MADHAV UNIVERSITY,PINDWARA, SIROHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α No.789 &790/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year:2024-25) Madhav University Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Exemption, Jaipur Pindwara, Madhav Hills, Nh 27, Vpo Bharja, Pindwara, Sirohi Rajasthan-307023 Pan: Aasam7855L Shri Amit Kothari Shri M.K. Jain, Cit(Dr.) Present For Assessee Present For Revenue Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Bench: The Instant Appeals Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (For Brevity, 'Ld.Cit(E)'] Order Passed Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') & Order Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act, Date Of Orders 30/09/2024. 2. Act Both The Appeals Related To Registration Under Section 12Ab& 80G Of The

section 12AB& 80G of the ITA No.789/Jodh/2024 3. The assessee has taken following grounds:- "1. a. The order passed by Id. CIT(Exemption) u/s 12A In Form 10AD rejecting the application made for registration u/s 11/12 of the Act is bad in law and bad on facts. b. The order passed is also contrary to the principles

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

50,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash found and seized during the course of search. The addition so mode is bad in law and on facts. The submissions furnished before the learned CIT appeal are reproduced again here under: 7 Dr. Manish Chhaparwal v. DCIT during the course of search proceedings itself, the Director of the a. appellant company