SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), relating to the assessment year 2022-23, whereby his appeal challenging intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act issued by Centraized Processing Centre (CPC), has been dismissed, on the following grounds:- “On perusal of the documents attached by the appellant, the contention of appellant is not found

SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), relating to the assessment year 2022-23, whereby his appeal challenging intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act issued by Centraized Processing Centre (CPC), has been dismissed, on the following grounds:- “On perusal of the documents attached by the appellant, the contention of appellant is not found

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income 1 Indu Bal Porwal vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Udaipur Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] is perverse, arbitrary, and bad in law, non-speaking and without jurisdiction. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A)’s Order is without application of mind, perverse and untenable in law which requires

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 115BBE of the Act on the professional income of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- surrendered by the appellant assessee during the course of survey u/s 133A and which was included by him in his return income. The ld. AO has also erred in invoking provisions of sec. 115BBE on addition of Rs.1,00,000/- made

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)

property discovered in course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment—Assessment in respect of each of six assessment years was separate and distinct assessment—U/s.153A , assessment had to be made in relation to search or 7 Tarun Murdia , Udaipur requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during search

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16& 2017- 18 to 2019-20. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 153A of the Act. 2. At the outset, both the assessee and the revenue

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16& 2017- 18 to 2019-20. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 153A of the Act. 2. At the outset, both the assessee and the revenue

RAJ KUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16& 2017- 18 to 2019-20. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 153A of the Act. 2. At the outset, both the assessee and the revenue

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16& 2017- 18 to 2019-20. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 153A of the Act. 2. At the outset, both the assessee and the revenue

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16& 2017- 18 to 2019-20. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 153A of the Act. 2. At the outset, both the assessee and the revenue

DCIT, CENTRAL CICLE-1, JODHPUR vs. SANJAY SINGHAL, MOUNT ABU

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16& 2017- 18 to 2019-20. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 153A of the Act. 2. At the outset, both the assessee and the revenue

AMRINDER SINGH JOSAN,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 492/Jodh/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

House No. 01 Green Field Sri Ganganagar. Near, New Dhan Mandi, Sri Ganganagar. Raj. [PAN:AFZPJ9321B] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Suresh Ojha, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 15.12.2023 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income