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

disallowance made in order u/s 143(1), by the ld. AO is bad in law and bad on facts, and such adjustment made was not justified u/s 143(1), as was not an apparent addition. b. The addition was not an apparent mistake of fact or law and even after the order of the ld. AO has directed to collect

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

95,029/- was disallowed by disallowing the exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. In argument, the ld. DR mentioned that the amount received from ‘DKJFFI’. The confirmation for contribution was sent by ‘DKJFFI’. The funds shall be used only for the purposes of acquisition construction running of hospital/dispensary, clinic and for repayment of any loan taken

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

95,029/- was disallowed by disallowing the exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. In argument, the ld. DR mentioned that the amount received from ‘DKJFFI’. The confirmation for contribution was sent by ‘DKJFFI’. The funds shall be used only for the purposes of acquisition construction running of hospital/dispensary, clinic and for repayment of any loan taken

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

95,029/- was disallowed by disallowing the exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. In argument, the ld. DR mentioned that the amount received from ‘DKJFFI’. The confirmation for contribution was sent by ‘DKJFFI’. The funds shall be used only for the purposes of acquisition construction running of hospital/dispensary, clinic and for repayment of any loan taken

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)

95,12,940/- as taxable under section 115BBC at the rate 30 percent though the same are not taxable and the same deserve to be exempt. This is quite arbitrary, unjustified, illegal and not based on facts. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT Appeals has grossly erred in not allowing Investment

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed to the extent, vide rectification u/s 154. (3) Alternatively: how assessment completed u/s 143 (3), proceeding u/s 154 is not amenable? Copy of reply dated 04/05/2018 attached at Pg No 54 to 97. Yet the Ld. AO did not consider without considering case laws furnished. In first appeal, it has been argued on similar line like:  Provision of section

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

section 263(2), the notice issued on 30-4- 2009 was barred by limitation. 6.4 In Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2021) 90 ITR TRIB (Trib) 554 (Mum), it was held that: 23 | P a g e "10. A perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under s. 147 of the Act, as reproduced in the body

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

95,015/-. 4. By the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) did not find any merit in the submission of assessee that the AO enhanced the scope of 3 ITA 158/Jodh/2019 Pushp Raj Bohra Vs DCIT assessment. For income earned from transfer of assets Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of the AO that same is taxable as business income

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

95,015/-. 4. By the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) did not find any merit in the submission of assessee that the AO enhanced the scope of assessment. For income earned from transfer of assets Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of the AO that same is taxable as business income but the alternative plea of assessee that till

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. RAVI INFRABUILD PROJECTS LIMITED, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

95, Hiran Magri Sector-11 Rajasthan Udaipur-313001, Rajasthan PAN NO: AAECR2780H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Amit Kothari, C.A Revenue by : Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30/10/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal by the revenue against the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT, Appeal Addl/JCIT

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

95,000/- totaling to Rs. 3,05,19,790/- will sell it for just an amount of Rs. 1,40,25,000/- and incur a huge loss in the process. It is again pertinent to note that the transaction of purchase and sale had been carried out in a short period of 7 months only and hence the time

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

95,475/-. Thus by this way, the AO enhanced figure to Rs 7,91,675/-. However, I find that the AO while calculating the amount to be disallowed u/s 14A rw.r. 8D, has not mentioned that how the figures of 678344X1126578/9658600) were arrived at. This shows that the AO has not followed CIT(A)'s directions in right perspective

ARAVALI TRADING COMPANY,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAGAUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradaravali Trading Company, Vs Ito, 154, Near Bus Stand, Ward-1, Nagour Merta City, Nagaur, (Rajasthan) Rajasthan-341510 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfa7735M Assessee By Shri Kishan Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of 21/03/2023 Pronouncement

95,509/-and made addition of Rs. 43,955/- by applying hypothetical G P rate @ 1% on hypothetically presumed suppressed sale. 2 | P a g e b. That Authorities below has seriously erred in facts and in law, while making the addition for so called discrepancies in the stock found excess/short in different packing of the same product, without making

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. Simply because the assessee has agreed for disallowance, the addition is not justified. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 10,18,703/- (Rs. 33,95

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

95,34,000 from various persons, but creditworthiness of none of them was verified by the AO by invoking the provisions of Section 131 or Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of proceedings all the duly signed account statement, bank accounts, ITR and interest account were duly furnished and properly verified

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

95,38,544/- (1,63,00,741+9,94,269+47,56,615+68,12,269+13,06,74,650) made on account of difference in contract receipt shown in Form 26AS vis-à-vis receipts accounted by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining disallowance

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

95,91,310/-. In course of assessment proceedings, the AO at para 5 of the assessment order observed that assessee has made interest payment of Rs.1,28,17,968/- on unsecured loans but has not charged any interest on loans advanced at Rs.7,92,69,331/-. It is noted that the AO by referring to section 36(1)(iii), definition

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. This ground is allowed.” e) ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT v/s Baldev Raj Charla reported in 121 TTJ 366 held as under: “Income from undisclosed sources- Addition under s. 69- Cash deposits – There being no material with IT authorities