WHEEL O CITY,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

74-Jodh-2021 - Opel Sulz Private Limited, 14.09.2021 Bhilwara 5 ITA No. 75-Jodh-2021 - Kishori Lal Singhvi, Balotra 01.09.2021 6 ITA No. 76-Jodh-2021 - Shubh Laxmi Syntx Limited, 10.09.2021 Bhilwara 7 ITA No. 64-Jodh-2021 – Santok Singh Gehlot, Jodhpur 12.04.2021 8 & 9 ITA Nos. 62 & 63-Jodh-2021- Wheel O City, Sri 16.07.2021 Ganganagar 2. Since

SANTOK SNGH GEHLOT,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

74-Jodh-2021 - Opel Sulz Private Limited, 14.09.2021 Bhilwara 5 ITA No. 75-Jodh-2021 - Kishori Lal Singhvi, Balotra 01.09.2021 6 ITA No. 76-Jodh-2021 - Shubh Laxmi Syntx Limited, 10.09.2021 Bhilwara 7 ITA No. 64-Jodh-2021 – Santok Singh Gehlot, Jodhpur 12.04.2021 8 & 9 ITA Nos. 62 & 63-Jodh-2021- Wheel O City, Sri 16.07.2021 Ganganagar 2. Since

WHEEL O CITY,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

74-Jodh-2021 - Opel Sulz Private Limited, 14.09.2021 Bhilwara 5 ITA No. 75-Jodh-2021 - Kishori Lal Singhvi, Balotra 01.09.2021 6 ITA No. 76-Jodh-2021 - Shubh Laxmi Syntx Limited, 10.09.2021 Bhilwara 7 ITA No. 64-Jodh-2021 – Santok Singh Gehlot, Jodhpur 12.04.2021 8 & 9 ITA Nos. 62 & 63-Jodh-2021- Wheel O City, Sri 16.07.2021 Ganganagar 2. Since

SHASHI MAHESHWARI,JODHPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

74-Jodh-2021 - Opel Sulz Private Limited, 14.09.2021 Bhilwara 5 ITA No. 75-Jodh-2021 - Kishori Lal Singhvi, Balotra 01.09.2021 6 ITA No. 76-Jodh-2021 - Shubh Laxmi Syntx Limited, 10.09.2021 Bhilwara 7 ITA No. 64-Jodh-2021 – Santok Singh Gehlot, Jodhpur 12.04.2021 8 & 9 ITA Nos. 62 & 63-Jodh-2021- Wheel O City, Sri 16.07.2021 Ganganagar 2. Since

OPEL SULZ PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

74-Jodh-2021 - Opel Sulz Private Limited, 14.09.2021 Bhilwara 5 ITA No. 75-Jodh-2021 - Kishori Lal Singhvi, Balotra 01.09.2021 6 ITA No. 76-Jodh-2021 - Shubh Laxmi Syntx Limited, 10.09.2021 Bhilwara 7 ITA No. 64-Jodh-2021 – Santok Singh Gehlot, Jodhpur 12.04.2021 8 & 9 ITA Nos. 62 & 63-Jodh-2021- Wheel O City, Sri 16.07.2021 Ganganagar 2. Since

OPEL SULZ PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

74-Jodh-2021 - Opel Sulz Private Limited, 14.09.2021 Bhilwara 5 ITA No. 75-Jodh-2021 - Kishori Lal Singhvi, Balotra 01.09.2021 6 ITA No. 76-Jodh-2021 - Shubh Laxmi Syntx Limited, 10.09.2021 Bhilwara 7 ITA No. 64-Jodh-2021 – Santok Singh Gehlot, Jodhpur 12.04.2021 8 & 9 ITA Nos. 62 & 63-Jodh-2021- Wheel O City, Sri 16.07.2021 Ganganagar 2. Since

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 143(1) / 154 and on facts also the same is outside the scope of such adjustment. 1.2. It is well settled that no addition can be made in a order u/s 143(1) / 154 where detailed reasoning is required for making any addition. The disallowance of depreciation is not a apparent mistake of law or fact which could

NAVAL KISHORE DAGA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

74,515/-, claiming refund of Rs. 2,720/-. Later, assessee filed his revised return of income on 29.09.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 10,76,941/- claiming refund of Rs. 2,340/-. CPC, Bengaluru processed the return of assessee and Naval Kishore Daga vs. DCIT issued intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 01.06.2019, making addition

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

disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80 IB (11A) for income earned under handling and transportation amounting to Rs. 13,43,806/- is unwarranted and unsustainable due to the following reasons:- i. In this connection we would like to state that literal interpretation of words "integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains" will not lead

GAJESINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.64/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

74,442/- and the debtors to whom the sales have not made is unverified and purchased during the year Rs.19,32,330/- which was not properly verified due to disparity in purchased on creditors. Accordingly, the assessee filed a written submission and explained that the assessee has filed return u/s 44AD of the Act and the creditors are included both

SH. HANUMAN PRASAD GOYAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, SURATGARH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavhanuman Prasad Goyal, Vs. I.T.O. Prop.-Goyal Enterprises, Ward-Suratgarh. Dhan Mandi, Gharsana. Pan No. Abvpg 7484 Q Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Adv. Revenue By Miss. Kajal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bikaner Dated 30/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2013-14, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By A.O. On Account Of Interest Paid To Creditors Rs. 8,89,780/-. It Was Having No Force Or Solid Base Hence It Should Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The It Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Grounds At Or Before Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

74 ITR 723) (Bom). 9. After careful analysis of the orders passed by the authorities below and the arguments advanced by the assessee, we are of the view that while making the additions, the A.O. had merely relied upon the decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 288 ITR 1 and Punjab Stainless Steel Industries

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, by the DCIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding validity of order passed by the Id AO. 2. That on the facts

HITKARI AND SWARAJ ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BARMER vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

74,20,000 (cost of improvement) 1. 7,24,790 (cost of land) +24,00,000 (cost of improvement) 1. 11,00,000 (cost of land) +30,75,000 3,05,19,810 (cost of improvement) Short term capital loss 1,64,93,128 10. As per the registered sale deed dated 19.06.2015 of the properties sold during the year

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

74,98,49,523/- made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-1A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with statutory requirement of provision of section

VIJAY RATAN SONI,DIDWANA, NAGAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

74,750/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reason of large cash deposit during the demonetization period and abnormal increase in sales with decrease in profitability. 3.1 Assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 17.12.2019 at a total income of Rs.8,25,330/- after making, inter alia: disallowance

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

74,31,560/- . The AO completed the assessment on 26/12/2018 determining totaling total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,07,35,280/-. Thereafter, the ld. PCIT had issued a show cause notice dated 22/02/2021 which was served upon the assessee. In response to the notice U/s 263 of the Act, the assessee submitted reply before the ld. PCIT

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. A/R placing reliance on the various judicial pronouncement submitted that no addition can be made either under section 41(1) or under section 68 of the Act as the AO himself did not specify the section under which he intended to make the addition. The ld. A/R further

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