ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

section 35AD, has been disallowed by the Id. AO in the\nreassessment proceedings u/s 148, but the same was allowed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

section 35AD, has been disallowed by the Id. AO in the\nreassessment proceedings u/s 148, but the same was allowed

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", "148

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)

disallowance or surrender of a claim, without establishing concealment or inaccuracy in particulars of income, does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). Likewise, the Rajasthan High Court in Pushpendra Surana (supra) has held that where income offered under section 148

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)

disallowance or surrender of a claim, without establishing concealment or inaccuracy in particulars of income, does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). Likewise, the Rajasthan High Court in Pushpendra Surana (supra) has held that where income offered under section 148

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)

disallowance or surrender of a claim, without establishing concealment or inaccuracy in particulars of income, does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). Likewise, the Rajasthan High Court in Pushpendra Surana (supra) has held that where income offered under section 148

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)

disallowance or surrender of a claim, without establishing concealment or inaccuracy in particulars of income, does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). Likewise, the Rajasthan High Court in Pushpendra Surana (supra) has held that where income offered under section 148

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

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

disallowance or surrender of a claim, without establishing concealment or\ninaccuracy in particulars of income, does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c).\nLikewise, the Rajasthan High Court in Pushpendra Surana (supra) has held that where\nincome offered under section 148

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

Section 148 of the Act of even date. 5.1 We also rely upon the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Navjeevan Charitable Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) [2024] 166 taxmann.com 725 (Gujarat) wherein it was held as under: 6 9.1 Having considered the direction in clause 4(i), it appears that the Central

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. , JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blea.C.I.T., Circle-1, Jodhpur. Revenue By Assessee By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

section 801A(7) to file audit report in form 10 CCB within prescribed time limit to claim deduction u/s 35AD. 2. ITA No. 540/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year 2015-16) 2. Whether the Ide CIT(A) has erred in observing that in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P). Ltd. 376 ITR 456, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

section 35AD, has been disallowed by the Id. AO in the reassessment proceedings u/s 148, but the same was allowed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 148 of the Act and in the absence of a notice to the assessee against whom reassessment order is proposed, the said order is held to be invalid.” 20 Smt. Pushpa Chhajer q] Further also rely on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Charan Singh (P.B. Page 217 to 224). In light

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 282A, the AO has not authenticated the\nassessment order and notices issued u/s 143(2)/142(1) by printing or stamping his name\nand office. Therefore, the order passed, without authentication is null and void.\n6. Most of the order of CIT (A) is not legible and void.\nIt is, therefore, requested please to delete the addition and quash

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

148 of the Act. 31. We therefore, quash the assessment orders u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 passed in consequence to notice dated 03.2015 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in the present appeal." e] No additions was made by AO on ground based upon which the assessment was reopened i] It is submitted that

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

148 of the Act. 31. We therefore, quash the assessment orders u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 passed in consequence to notice dated 03.2015 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in the present appeal." e] No additions was made by AO on ground based upon which the assessment was reopened i] It is submitted that

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

148 was also supplied to the assessee. Learned Assessing Officer also noted the facts about accounts of the assessee not audited and hence details, filed by the directors of the assessee has no relevance as they are not based on audited financial statements. Owing to limitation for completing the assessment, due by 31.12.2017, learned Assessing Officer proceeded to make

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

disallow the claimed capital expenditure of Rs.5,25,52,586/-. Since, the assessee was hit by provision of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the total taxable income comes to Rs.6,71,88,566/- (Rs.1,46,35,981/- + Rs.5,25,52,586/-), therefore, the assessment done at NIL income by the AO is erroneous as the final computation

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing exemption claimed under section 11 which resulted in a demand to be payable by the taxpayer amount of Rs. 13489828. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that appellant is registered u/s. 12A and 80G by the Commissioner as it is engaged in imparting education and running various education institutions. The appellant had not filed return