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

carried forward of unabsorbed loss of Rs. 5,52,17,083/- (b/f loss of AY 2016-17 Rs.3,17,161 + current year's loss of Rs.5,48,99,877/-). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) dated 17.08.2018 was digitally served on the registered email of the assessee- company through ITBA module

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. ASHAPURNA INFRAPROJECT PVT. LTD., , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

carry forward loss of Rs. (-) 6,71,98,494/-. Subsequently notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire was issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details and the case was discussed. The AO on perusal of the information and the facts

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. ASHAPURNA INFRAPROJECT PVT. LTD., , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

carry forward loss of Rs. (-) 6,71,98,494/-. Subsequently notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire was issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details and the case was discussed. The AO on perusal of the information and the facts

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

carried forward in the subsequent year, it would not prove that the trading liabilities the assessee have become non existent. 6.2 The aforesaid decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nitin S. Garg (supra) has been considered and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara (supra) and the addition made

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) :-

carried forward and notionally adjusted from the profits arising from eligible business in the 'initial assessment year' and subsequent assessment years for the purposes of Section 80IA(5) of the Act. 9. The manner of determination of quantum of deduction as provided under s.80IA(5) of the Act has since been clarified by the CBDT Circular No.1 of 2016 dated

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

forward until it becomes nil by reducing its amount from income of any subsequent year. In this way it is outflow of fund. I do concur with the view of the AO. In the case of Bombay Sales Corporation [2017] 86 taxmann.com 9 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) held that, since no interest free own funds were available at disposal of assessee, disallowance

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)

loss, claim for disallowance of interest of substantial amount, additions made on account of unexplained cash entries in the bankaccounts, etc.the ITAT noticed inter alia that all the additions werenot based upon anyfresh materials seized during the course of search. That was the first groundfor setting aside the order; the lTAT also considered and decided in fovouroftheassessee on the merits

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

carried out at the residence/business premises at Udai Niwas, Bhanwar Mata Road, Chhoti Sadari, certain incriminating documents Annexure A-1, Page No. 1-63, Party No. 3 were found and seized. It contains agreement of transfer of ownership of land. As per aforesaid agreement Sh. Manohar Lal Anjana P/o M/s Anjana Construction has sold

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

carried out at the residence/business premises at Udai Niwas, Bhanwar Mata Road, Chhoti Sadari, certain incriminating documents Annexure A-1, Page No. 1-63, Party No. 3 were found and seized. It contains agreement of transfer of ownership of land. As per aforesaid agreement Sh. Manohar Lal Anjana P/o M/s Anjana Construction has sold

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. ANJANA CONSTRUCTION, CHITTORGARH

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

carried out at the residence/business premises at Udai Niwas, Bhanwar Mata Road, Chhoti Sadari, certain incriminating documents Annexure A-1, Page No. 1-63, Party No. 3 were found and seized. It contains agreement of transfer of ownership of land. As per aforesaid agreement Sh. Manohar Lal Anjana P/o M/s Anjana Construction has sold

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

carrying out all the activities which are relevant for earning the income for these properties by extending various facilities. The income arising there from is necessarily assessable under the head Income from Business and profession and assessee and accordingly the claim of depreciation was in order. Your kind attention is also invited towards the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

loss to the Revenue / Income Tax Department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (supra) inter alia held as under:-"An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

loss. The ld. AO has issued the notice u/s 148 on\n19.03.2021(PB1), on the reason that” Information received from ITBA\nunder AIMS, Multi Year\nNMS Priority. 1. As per information code SFT 004, the assessee has deposited cash in account\nother than current account amount of Rs.1,75,20,300/- during the F.Y. 2016-17 assessee has not\nfiled

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

losses & paid taxes on MAT. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and after issue of notice u/s 143(2)/ 142(1) the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 28/12/2019 after thoroughly considering the reply furnished by the assessee at a total income of Rs.10,85,93,969/- by making following disallowances

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Loss). Though these figures were there in Audited Accounts.Copy of relevant page of ITR is enclosed refer page no.172-173 of Paper Book. 2.3. Now once the AO added /increased the Income then its was his first Duty to allow Capital expenditure of Rs. 44,26,340/- against the Increased Income. This the AO did not do so resulting in unjust

PATEL MINERALS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

loss of Rs 7,58,076/- on 03.09.2015. 3. Aforesaid return was picked up for limited scrutiny to verify share premium, however same was converted into full scrutiny later on. 4. Learned AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) on 08.12.2017 with following addition : S. Particulars Detail Amount No (in Rs) 1 Total Income as per Return filed

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

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

carrying on\nbusiness in Bombay and also in Rajkot. The profits from the Rajkot business were\nassessed by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 1,17,643. The Income-tax Officer also found\nremittances to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs from Rajkot to Bombay, but did not include that\namount in the assessment in view of the concession allowed

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

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

carrying on\nbusiness in Bombay and also in Rajkot. The profits from the Rajkot business were\nassessed by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 1,17,643. The Income-tax Officer also found\nremittances to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs from Rajkot to Bombay, but did not include that\namount in the assessment in view of the concession allowed

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

loss of Rs.4,51,684/- on sale of 2 plot located in Malviya Nagar, Jaipur and Long term capital gain of Rs.14,10,440/- on sale of a plot located in Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. These plots were purchased by assessee during the F.Y. 2012- 13 with the intention to hold it as capital investment. The same is shown as Fixed