MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

disallowance\nunder Chapter-VI-A by taking view that no such deduction claimed in original return of income\nand no evidence to substantiate such deductions were filed—CIT(A) observed that pattern of\nwithdrawal support contention of assessee is that deposit in bank were pertaining to business of\nits scrap-Accordingly, accepted transaction—CIT(A) on basis of pattern

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.

disallowance and finally assessed the total loss of Rs. (-) 3,93,54,203/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act dated 18.12.2018. ITA Nos. 228& 229/Jodh/2019 M/s. Ashapurna Infraprojects Pvt Ltd., Bhupalpura 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee has filed the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the validity

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.

disallowance and finally assessed the total loss of Rs. (-) 3,93,54,203/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act dated 18.12.2018. ITA Nos. 228& 229/Jodh/2019 M/s. Ashapurna Infraprojects Pvt Ltd., Bhupalpura 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee has filed the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the validity

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of interest for an amount of Rs. 3,16,663/-. 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “7.1 In the case of appellant, by merely submitting confirmations

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of interest for an amount of Rs. 3,16,663/-. 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “7.1 In the case of appellant, by merely submitting confirmations

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowing the legal and legitimate claim of the appellant solely on the ground that the claim was made during the assessment proceedings i.e. Acquisition of Fixed Assets, Purchase of Books and Periodicals and Payment of endowment fund to university of. This approach is arbitrary, unjustified, and against the principles of natural justice. The circular specifically emphasizes the duty

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

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

3, the assessee has objected to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets being claimed allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order

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

3, the assessee has objected to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets being claimed allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order

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

3, the assessee has objected to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets being claimed allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order

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

3, the assessee has objected to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets being claimed allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order

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

3, the assessee has objected to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets being claimed allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order

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

3, the assessee has objected to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets being claimed allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order

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

3. The ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the submissions as were made before the ld. Pr.CIT and also filed written submissions. The main contents of the written submissions filed before the ld Pr.CIT was reproduced as under: It appears from the notice that present proceeding have been initiated by considering the assessment order

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

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)

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 ofthe additions