DINESH BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO,W-1, BARMER, BARMER, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

income at Rs. 1,25,68,514/- by making an addition on account of disallowance of agriculture income of Rs.58

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

addition to the total income was made. The ld. AO also disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,18,44,224/- on its borrowed

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

income without making any\naddition disallowance; or\n(b) The assessment is framed and the Assessing Officer makes certain addition

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

income for AY 2018-19 4 Copy of Audited Financial statements for AY 2018-19 21-40 5 Notice u/s 142(1) issued during the assessment 41-44 proceedings. 6 Submissions made before the ld. AO 45 7 Power Purchase agreement with JVVNL 46-60 8 Audit report in 10CCB for all the units 61-72 5.1 In addition

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

income, if any, unearthed during the search or requisition - Where an assessment has been framed earlier and no assessment or reassessment was pending on the date of initiation of search u/s 132 or making of requisition u/s 132A, addition or disallowances

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

Disallowance of depreciation claimed Rs. 62,641/-: 1.1. The appellant had filed return of income on 18.8.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 51,94,140/- which was assessed u/s 143(1) at Rs. 52,56,780/-. The variation in income was on account of not allowing claim of depreciation of Rs. 62,641/- against income from other sources. The appellant

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

income under section 148 was triggered by certain discrepancies noted during survey proceedings conducted on 21.02.2019, particularly in relation to unverifiable food-related expenses. It was given these findings and in order to cover any possible disallowance on an estimated basis that the assessee offered additional

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

income under section 148 was triggered by certain discrepancies noted during survey proceedings conducted on 21.02.2019, particularly in relation to unverifiable food-related expenses. It was given these findings and in order to cover any possible disallowance on an estimated basis that the assessee offered additional

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

income under section 148 was triggered by certain discrepancies noted during survey proceedings conducted on 21.02.2019, particularly in relation to unverifiable food-related expenses. It was given these findings and in order to cover any possible disallowance on an estimated basis that the assessee offered additional

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCITL CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

income under section 148 was triggered by certain discrepancies noted during survey proceedings conducted on 21.02.2019, particularly in relation to unverifiable food-related expenses. It was given these findings and in order to cover any possible disallowance on an estimated basis that the assessee offered additional

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

addition to income, or disallowance from expenditure or some other adverse inference, is warranted. In such a situation, there will

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

addition to income, or disallowance from expenditure or some other adverse inference, is warranted. In such a situation, there will

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

income without making any\naddition disallowance; or\n(b) The assessment is framed and the Assessing Officer makes certain addition

NAVAL KISHORE DAGA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

addition of Rs. 205303/- in respect of disallowance of interest expenditure claimed against the interest income u/s 57 of the Act. 4. That

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition

SH. HANUMAN PRASAD GOYAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, SURATGARH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavhanuman Prasad Goyal, Vs. I.T.O. Prop.-Goyal Enterprises, Ward-Suratgarh. Dhan Mandi, Gharsana. Pan No. Abvpg 7484 Q Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Adv. Revenue By Miss. Kajal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2021 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 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bikaner Dated 30/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2013-14, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By A.O. On Account Of Interest Paid To Creditors Rs. 8,89,780/-. It Was Having No Force Or Solid Base Hence It Should Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The It Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Grounds At Or Before Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

Income 3,54,390 1. Trading Addition 49,47,823 8,89,780 2. Interest Disallowed 62,996 3. Disallowed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. MANOHAR LAL ANJANA, NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Manohar Lal Anjana Central Circle-1 Anjana Compound, Petch Udaipur Area, Opportunity. Dak Bunglow, Nimbahera, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abwpa 2124 L

addition of notional income goes against real income principle, where as the interest disallowance could be made u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, if the loan