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 does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

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 does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance can be made, and the original assessment should be reiterated. Completed assessments cannot be disturbed unless contrary material is unearthed during the search. The AO failed to produce any incriminating material to justify the additions made.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "153A", "143(3)", "10(38)", "132", "132A", "147

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

147 of the I.T.\nAct, 1961, on account of failure of the assessee to file the return of income and\ndisclose fully and truly the material facts relating to the above transaction.\nThe assessee had already filed its return of income on 14.10.2014. Copy of ITR so\nfiled is enclosed-3.\nAccordingly, the AO has issued notice on wrong presumption

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of Rs. 3,16,663/- out of interest expenses claimed from the rental income. 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.” 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that return declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,637/- was e-filed

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of Rs. 3,16,663/- out of interest expenses claimed from the rental income. 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.” 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that return declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,637/- was e-filed

NAGAUR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAGAUR

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

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenagaur Urban Coop Bank Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 Limited Nagaur - 341001 Head Office Bal Samand, Nagaur - 341001 Pan No. Aaaan 7788 B Assessee By None (Adjournment Application) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Nfac/Cit Appeal”] Dated 27.09.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2022-23 Challenging Therein Disallowance Of Rs. 6,51,147/- By Cpc Invoking Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act.

disallowance of Rs. 6,51,147/- by CPC invoking provisions of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. 2. None

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

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

section 147 of the Act can be taken to\ntax the income which has escaped assessment or had remained to be taxed. There\ncan be situation where an item has been dealt with in the body of the order of\nassessment and the assessee be aggrieved from the addition or disallowances

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

147 read with section 148 is bad in law having regard to the facts of the case, written submission and position of law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,50,000/- by disallowing

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

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

section 147 of the Act can be taken to\ntax the income which has escaped assessment or had remained to be taxed. There\ncan be situation where an item has been dealt with in the body of the order of\nassessment and the assessee be aggrieved from the addition or disallowances

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

disallowed and Rs.500000/-as added back to total income of assessee. On the above facts, income of the assessee is calculated as under:- Returned Income 4,29,620/- Add: Addition on a/c of wrong claim of 80G 5,00,000/- Total Income 9,29,620/- After that Ld. AO initiated penal proceedings U/S 270A

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

disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147

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

disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147

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

disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147

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

disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147

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

disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147

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

disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

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

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

section 147 r.w.s. 144/144B on 27.03.2022 determining income at Rs.1,03,78,887/- by disallowing the said expenses. 4. Against