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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur dated 29.03.2022 [here in after (ld. PCIT)] for assessment year 2017-18 which in turn arise from the order dated 28.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income

M/S. KHADI GRAMMODHYOG PRATISTHAN,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(2), BANGALURU / BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 14.02.2023 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2019-20 which in turn arise from the order dated 01.05.2020 passed under section 143(1) of the Income

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

131(1)(d) of the Act, which the A.O. completely failed. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that even the bank statement which was called by the A.O. directly from the bank clearly indicate that there was sufficient credit balance in the bank account of the lender. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) considered various judicial pronouncements and after applying

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

131(1)(d) of the Act, which the A.O. completely failed. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that even the bank statement which was called by the A.O. directly from the bank clearly indicate that there was sufficient credit balance in the bank account of the lender. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) considered various judicial pronouncements and after applying

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

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 19/03/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) wherein following grounds have been raised: “1. The Ld. PCIT was wrong in law as well

DURGA PUROHIT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24-08-2022 for the assessment year 2020-21 raising therein solitary ground of appeal as under:- 2 DURGA PUROHIT VS ITO, WARD 2 (1), UDAIPUR 1. The appellant prays that

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

D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Pr. CIT, Bikaner dated 16.03.2018 passed U/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the assessment year 2013-14. Following grounds have been taken: "1. The order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT, Bikaner

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)

131,132/Jodh//2019 dt. 28.11.2019 the HonbleITAT has held that “We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities and the judgment cited by the parties. From the facts we notedthat the additions have been made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld.CIT

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

1,26,65,229/-(8194403+4470826)\ninstead of Rs.81,94,403/- declared by the assessee. Accordingly he has made\naddition of Rs.44,70,826/- in the A.Y. 2013-14. Same type of additions have also\nbeen made in the A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17 asper the above chart.\n6.2. Further

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. VISHNU PRAKASH R PUGALIA, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia, Circle-1, P. No. 22, Subhash Colony, New Jodhpur. Pali Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aadfv 4672 J

disallowed but how the un verifiable receipt could be added in the income. d. The AO further stated that the explanation so furnished are baseless and afterthought in this regard it is submitted that 11 ITA 09/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs M/s Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia. noting contrary has found in the books of account bills and vouchers produced during assessment proceedings

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur-2 dated 27.03.2023 [here in after (ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2014-15 which in turn arise from the order dated 30.12.2016 passed under 2 Smt. Pushpa Chhajer section

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

D E R PER BENCH The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 29/08/2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting

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

1. The Ld. PCIT was wrong in law as well as in facts in setting aside the order of the assessing officer without considering facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The ld. PCIT has not been able to establish the pre-requisite conditions for invoking the revisional provision.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL SAMDANI,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Vs. I.T.O., D-43, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara Ward-3, (Raj)-311001. Bhilwara. Pan No. Adqps 6311 K Assessee By Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021

D E R PER: BENCH This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 11/04/2017 for the AY. 2013-14 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 2. The hearing of the appeals was concluded through video conference