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

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 The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary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, 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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the additions in new plant and machinery installed during the year relating to Manufacturing of Ready Mix Concrete. 26.3 The above facts has been accepted by in a similar case additional depreciation has been allowed by Delhi Tribunal on RMC plant in case of YFC Projects

PRADEEP HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

27,71,000/- is held as income of the abm assessee on the basis of excel sheet, then it cannot be taxed u/s 69A of the Act (a) since the conditions laid down u/s 69A of the Act are not fulfilled as a rough noting on an excel sheet cannot be said to be money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article

PRADEEP HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

27,71,000/- is held as income of the abm assessee on the basis of excel sheet, then it cannot be taxed u/s 69A of the Act (a) since the conditions laid down u/s 69A of the Act are not fulfilled as a rough noting on an excel sheet cannot be said to be money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article

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

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

27 flat for financial year 2014-\n15 and 23 flats for financial year 2015-16. Accordingly he estimated the additional\ncharges of these flats and worked out to Rs.67,50,000/- and Rs.57,50,000/- for\nfinancial year 2014-15 and 2015-16 i.e A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively by\nstating that the same is not considered

SH. MAHENDRA SINGH,FLAT NO.303, ASHAPURA TOWER, PAOTA, JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaishri Mahendra Singh Vs Theacit Flat No. 303, Ashapura Tower Circle-3 Paota, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Csdps 5573B

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. I do not find any reason whatsoever in nature to interfere with the observation and findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer in regard to the disallowance of Interest expenditure u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs. 1,18,90,400/-.No interference in AO's Order is called for. The addition

DARSHAN LAL KATHPAL HUF,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. AO, CPC (RNJ-W-(570((92) / ITO, WARD-1,, SRIGANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has deducted TDS under section 194Q

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHAHNAVAJ NAJIK L.H OF LATE SH. IQBAL NAJIK, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Acit Vs Shri Shahnavaj Najik Circle-Pali L/H Of Late Shri Iqbal Najik 173, Ashapura Nagar, Pali (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpn 5861 D

disallowed interest expenditure of Rs.5,83,397/- claimed thereon. Thus the total addition aggregated to Rs.80,83,397/-. 3. Before the Ld CIT(A) the assessee filed evidences to show that the lender has filed suit against the assessee for recovery of loan amount. By admitting those additional evidences, the Ld CIT(A) accepted the genuineness of loan and accordingly

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

PRADEEP HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, HonʼBlepradeep Heda, 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaiph2617J Sunita Heda 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur- 313001. Pan No. Aamph3169D Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

27,71,000/- is held as income of the abm assessee on the basis of excel sheet, then it cannot be taxed u/s 69A of the Act (a) since the conditions laid down u/s 69A of the Act are not fulfilled as a rough noting on an excel sheet cannot be said to be money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article