MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

loss. The ld. AO has issued the notice u/s 148 on\n19.03.2021(PB1), on the reason that” Information received from ITBA\nunder AIMS, Multi Year\nNMS Priority. 1. As per information code SFT 004, the assessee has deposited cash in account\nother than current account amount of Rs.1,75,20,300/- during the F.Y. 2016-17 assessee has not\nfiled

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

carrying on\nbusiness in Bombay and also in Rajkot. The profits from the Rajkot business were\nassessed by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 1,17,643. The Income-tax Officer also found\nremittances to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs from Rajkot to Bombay, but did not include that\namount in the assessment in view of the concession allowed

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

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

carrying on\nbusiness in Bombay and also in Rajkot. The profits from the Rajkot business were\nassessed by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 1,17,643. The Income-tax Officer also found\nremittances to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs from Rajkot to Bombay, but did not include that\namount in the assessment in view of the concession allowed

DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

carried out during the year. The appellant provided its bank statement to prove its point that no payment has been made to Manisha Parmar, as alleged. 2.3 The AO completed the assessment making an addition of Rs.75,00,000/- u/s 69. The CIT(A), before whom all the evidence which was filed before the AO as well, was again furnished

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)

loss, claim for disallowance of interest of substantial amount, additions made on account of unexplained cash entries in the bankaccounts, etc.the ITAT noticed inter alia that all the additions werenot based upon anyfresh materials seized during the course of search. That was the first groundfor setting aside the order; the lTAT also considered and decided in fovouroftheassessee on the merits

SHRI GOPAL SONI ,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Gopal Soni Prop Vs. The Acit, Circle – 1 Durga Silver Home Bikaner. Katla Chowk Nokha Rajasthan. Bikaner-334803, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aemps5097M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

reassess the income u/s 154. The said mistake is not of record That was a debatable matter so no order this section should be made. The power conferred by provisions of Sec. 154/155 is a power to correct mistakes and not a power of review U/S 154, an A.O. cannot be permitted to revise or review his earlier order, there