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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

carried out any transaction in shares and therefore, there is no question of providing the Demat account or declaring income from dividend / STCG / LTCG. In fact, the loss of Rs. 11,75,857/- incurred by the assessee is on hedging of the commodity in NCDEX/MCX on the basis of the stock of various commodities held by it. The hedging loss

ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER vs. M/S. MAHAVEER INFRA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI.

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.186/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.212/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Circle M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Vs. Rajasthan Mumbai-400 072 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.222/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. C.O. No.18/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.186/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle बना E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Aaykar Bhavan म/ Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Vs. Mumbai-400 072 Rajasthan "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

loss on sale of machinery for Rs.23.68 Lacs which remained unsubstantiated and accordingly, disallowed by Ld AO while framing the assessment. Similar was the position before Ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the addition by observing that the assessee failed to file any evidences of sale consideration. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised Ground No. 5 in the cross- objection

M/S. MAHAVEER INFRA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI. vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.186/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.212/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Circle M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Vs. Rajasthan Mumbai-400 072 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.222/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. C.O. No.18/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.186/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle बना E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Aaykar Bhavan म/ Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Vs. Mumbai-400 072 Rajasthan "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

loss on sale of machinery for Rs.23.68 Lacs which remained unsubstantiated and accordingly, disallowed by Ld AO while framing the assessment. Similar was the position before Ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the addition by observing that the assessee failed to file any evidences of sale consideration. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised Ground No. 5 in the cross- objection

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

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

loss during storage due to excessive moisture, pre storage bulk grain dumping and drying facilities, creation of facilities for mechanized sampling, weighing and detection of live infectants, mechanized receiving and handling by storing in Silos equipped with facilities of aeration and fumigation, loading and unloading facilities and traffic management and dumping pits, chain conveyors, elevators and facilities for mechanized shipment

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

RAVINDRA HERAEUS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDIAPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Loss Account ,to the extent disallowable u/s 40A, to the persons specified in Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In other words in the ITR the assessee was expected to specify the amount which was disallowable in terms of Section 40A(2)(b)of the Act. On the other hand, in Clause 23 of the TAR read with Annexure

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

M/S. SIR PRATAP HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. ,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.488 To 494/Jodh/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Sir Pratap Heritage Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Acit– Central Circle-1 बनाम/ 1, Amarkantak Road Jodhpur Dhanpuri, Shahdol Rajasthan Vs. Madhya Pradesh-484 114. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-4923-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

losses of earlier years. 1.3 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (AR), at the outset, drawing our attention to Ground Nos. 1 & 2 challenged the validly of assessment proceedings by submitting that since no incriminating evidence / material was found during the course of search, the additions would not be sustainable under law. The assessment proceedings for the year

M/S. SIR PRATAP HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. ,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.488 To 494/Jodh/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Sir Pratap Heritage Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Acit– Central Circle-1 बनाम/ 1, Amarkantak Road Jodhpur Dhanpuri, Shahdol Rajasthan Vs. Madhya Pradesh-484 114. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-4923-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

losses of earlier years. 1.3 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (AR), at the outset, drawing our attention to Ground Nos. 1 & 2 challenged the validly of assessment proceedings by submitting that since no incriminating evidence / material was found during the course of search, the additions would not be sustainable under law. The assessment proceedings for the year