MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature at this stage, both the grounds are dismissed. 6. The ground No. 7 raised by the appellant is regarding charging of interest amounting to Rs. 24,49.836/- u/s 234B of the Act. This being consequential in nature, the AO is directed to allow relief

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

25,51,340/- without appreciating the facts on merits of the case that disputed addition has been made without any tangible material in possession of the AO, invoking the extended period of limitation under the provisions of I.T. Act for reopening of the assessment. The AR contended that the AO has made the addition and the NFAC uphold the said

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR. vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

25,51,340/- without appreciating the facts on merits of the case that disputed addition has been made without any tangible material in possession of the AO, invoking the extended period of limitation under the provisions of I.T. Act for reopening of the assessment. The AR contended that the AO has made the addition and the NFAC uphold the said

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blechainaram V/P Doli Tehsil Luni, Jodhpur - 342001. Pan No Biкpr9270C Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Ito, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur. Shri Anil Bhansali, Advocate. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit (Sr. D.R.) 21.05.2025. 26.06.2025. 17

25,51,340/- without appreciating the facts on merits of the case that disputed addition has been made without any tangible material in possession of the AO, invoking the extended period of limitation under the provisions of I.T. Act for reopening of the assessment. The AR contended that the AO has made the addition and the NFAC uphold the said

LOKESH SETHIYA,CHITTORGARH vs. ITO, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 14.12.2018. Lokesh Sethiya vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 12,24,265/- being cash deposited in bank account

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

sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings uis 274 and 271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable. The ground