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.

Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." And finally, it was held that on the date of search

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.

Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." And finally, it was held that on the date of search

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

153/- from FDR with Punjab National Bank and DCBL and Interest on advances to parties. The net interest of Rs. 75,81,296/- charged to Profit and Loss as expenditure. In the course of assessment preceding the learned A.O. has accepted the claim of interest (Net) only after 6 ITA 171/Johd/2018 Nokha Agro Services Vs PCIT satisfaction that interest received

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

153 & 153A of the Act, the assessment for A.Ys 2011-12 to 2016-17, the satisfaction note is required to be recorded separately whereas a consolidated satisfaction recorded for different assessment years is contrary to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The alleged note is annexed in APB page 100-101 which is reproduced as below:- “Satisfaction Note

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

153 & 153A of the Act, the assessment for A.Ys 2011-12 to 2016-17, the satisfaction note is required to be recorded separately whereas a consolidated satisfaction recorded for different assessment years is contrary to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The alleged note is annexed in APB page 100-101 which is reproduced as below:- “Satisfaction Note

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

153 & 153A of the Act, the assessment for A.Ys 2011-12 to 2016-17, the satisfaction note is required to be recorded separately whereas a consolidated satisfaction recorded for different assessment years is contrary to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The alleged note is annexed in APB page 100-101 which is reproduced as below:- “Satisfaction Note

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 Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section 147/148

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 Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section 147/148

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 Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section 147/148

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 Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section 147/148

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 Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section 147/148

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 Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section 147/148

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

section 145 are not found to\nbe relevant in the facts of this case. The AO has not disturbed the book results as the cash\ntransactions are not part of regular books of accounts.\nThe ld CIT(A) has also tried to distinguish the decisions relied upon. Thus on the\nbasis of above observations the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

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)

Section 153 A only on basis of some incriminating material unearthed during course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment—Assessment in respect of each of six assessment years was separate and distinct assessment—U/s.153A

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

153 (Mad)\n(v) Finally, the word \"may\" used in Section 133A (3)(iii) of the Act, viz.,\n\"record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to,\nany proceeding under this Act, as already extracted above, makes it clear that\nthe materials collected and the statement recorded during the survey\nunder Section 133A

HARMONY PLASTICS PVT.LTD., ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad180/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) M/S. Harmony Plastics Pvt Ltd. V The Acit S F-335-339, Bhamashah Industrial Circle-1 Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur Uddaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch 5399 D

disallowance of balance 50% additional depreciation on new Plant & Machinery purchased and installed during the IInd half of A.Y. 2014-15 and depreciation claimed @ 10% of Rs.21,81,146/-. The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that allowance of balance 50% of the additional on new plant or machinery acquired and used for less than 180 days which

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) :

153 r.w.s. 143(3) on 27/03/2016. While framing assessment, it was saddled with disallowance of certain expenses for Rs.8.44 Lacs. The assessment proceedings stem from search operations u/s 132 carried out by the department on Vinod Purohit group of cases on 16/04/2013 wherein several incriminating documents along with cash, jewelery and other valuables were stated to be found / seized from

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) :

153 r.w.s. 143(3) on 27/03/2016. While framing assessment, it was saddled with disallowance of certain expenses for Rs.8.44 Lacs. The assessment proceedings stem from search operations u/s 132 carried out by the department on Vinod Purohit group of cases on 16/04/2013 wherein several incriminating documents along with cash, jewelery and other valuables were stated to be found / seized from