SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

section 14A is not sustainable. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in upholding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in its appeal is dismissed. 3) ACIT Vs Vinay Sehgal [2012] 27

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

27 /09/2023 Pronouncement O R 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

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)

27. More fundamentally, we note that the action for reassessment is not founded on income liable to tax having escaped assessment. The respondents also do not question the acceptance of the accumulations in terms of Section 11(2) in the assessment order dated 01 December 2018. The entire action for reassessment is founded solely on Form 10 having been submitted

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

27¬12-2007, the claim made by the assessee with reference to the provisions of section 72A was disallowed. On 30-4-2009, the Commissioner

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

27, Gundochiya Ka Bas, Pali. [PAN: ABCPG1958N) (Appellant) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur. (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Mayank Taparia, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Manoj Kuamr Mahar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement 10/03/2025 ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order

RAVINDRA HERAEUS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDIAPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in light of aforesaid directions

27. On the other hand, the contentions advanced on behalf of the Revenue is that the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and one of reasons was Large Outward Foreign Remittance (under the code TX12.01) as mentioned in Form 15CA which is related to International Transactions of Rs 44.79 Crores involving TP Risk Parameter

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

disallowance made by the AO by applying section 36(1)(iii) is not as per law for which reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) (ii) B and A Plantations and Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 242 ITR 22 (Gauhati) (HC) 8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels

RAMESH RAJ BHRA,JALORE vs. DCIT,BARMER CIRCLE,, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aappb 7135 G

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% so made by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 3 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 6. It was argued

PUSHAP RAJ BOHRA ,JALORE vs. DCIT, BARMER CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aanpb 4456 C

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 6. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not as per law. He placed reliance on the decisions referred in the order of Ld. CIT(A) (supra). 7. The Ld. D/R relied on the order of AO by arguing that assessee has not filed any evidence linking that own funds have been utilised for giving the interest

SMT. LEELA DEVI SANKHLECHA,JODHPUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmismt. Leela Devi Sankhlecha Vs The Ito C-133, Kamla Nehru Nagar Ward 3(4) X-1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aobps 7384 G

27,000/-. 4. The ld. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary

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

27) where they accepted the transaction and provided the PAN. ii) Copy of bank statement of M/s Swift Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. (PB 28) from where they made payment of Rs.75 lakhs to the assessee on account of the amount due to them. iii) Copy of income tax return of M/s Swift

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

27,59,306 Net profit @ 10.32% 52 04.12,760 Add: Depreciation disallowed 1,64,006 52,02,48,754 Profit already declared Nil Profit calculated on application of net profit rate 52,02,48,754 12 Varaha Infra Ltd. The profit of Rs.52,02,48,754/- was considered the income of the assessee from works contract. (Addition: Rs.52

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

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54F by the assessee as there was no addition on the ground as recorded in reasons to believe u/s 148. The Ld. CIT(A) order is against the binding judicial precedents of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Sh. Ram Singh (306 ITR 343) & CIT v/s Dr. Devendra Gupta (336 ITR 59) 4.That

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 69A in the year under consideration. 4.2 Accordingly the addition made by the Ld. AO in the proceedings u/s 153A is without jurisdiction/scope u/s 153A hence illegal and uncalled for. In this respect, the ratios of above judgments are fully applicable considering the facts and circumstances which are totally similar and identical to above cases. Hence the assessment

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

section 263, can set aside an order, for lack of proper inquiry or verification, and ask the Assessing Officer to conduct such inquiries or verifications afresh.” Thus, while applying the principles laid down in the case of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs DCIT(E) (supra), it is evident that in the present case, the A.O. had made all necessary enquiries

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

disallowed and added to the total income of assessee in the head of capital gain under short term capital gain for the relevant year." 14 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT However, after analyzing the order of assessment, the ld. PCIT directed that the sale of land be booked under the head Business and Profession rather than STCG

SARVODAYA MINING SERVICES,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 17/12/2018. 2. The appeal was filed with delay for 15 days. The petition for condonation of delay was filed. The ordinate delay for 15days is condoned. 3. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The Ld.AR argued and submitted a paper book containing pages