ARPIT GULECHA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, 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

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 the issues involved are common in all these appeals which were heard together

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

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 the issues involved are common in all these appeals which were heard together

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

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 the issues involved are common in all these appeals which were heard together

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

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 the issues involved are common in all these appeals which were heard together

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

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 the issues involved are common in all these appeals which were heard together

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

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 the issues involved are common in all these appeals which were heard together

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

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 is out of FDR with PNB and DCBL made for the purpose of Bank guarantee given to the NCDEX

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

disallowed a sum of Rs 13,87,72,635/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This shows that the assessee violated the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) by not deducting tax on payment of Rs. 46,25,75

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. 75,00,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. 75,00,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. 75,00,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. 75,00,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. 75,00,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. 75,00,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

75 ( Hon’ble Gujarat High Court) 14 Xavier Kelavani Mandal the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that even (P.) Ltd. (2014) if the Form No. 10B is filed at a later stage, either taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) before the A.O. or before the appellate authority; it would be a sufficient compliance with requirements of section

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

75 ( Hon’ble Gujarat High Court) 14 Xavier Kelavani Mandal the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that even (P.) Ltd. (2014) if the Form No. 10B is filed at a later stage, either taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) before the A.O. or before the appellate authority; it would be a sufficient compliance with requirements of section

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

Section 43(5). Considering these facts, the claim of disallowance of loss made by the AO is deleted.” From perusal of the record, we observe that the AO on perusal of audit report observed that the assesse in its trading account has claimed loss of Rs. 11,75

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

75,71,532/- has escaped assessment to tax for the A.Y. 2012-13 within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.2 The AO thus, having recorded specific reasons, could not have enquired into and examined any issue other than those already recorded in the reasons to believe, as above. A specific amount