RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

10(38) of the IT Act, 1961, on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gain. 4. Now, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The first ground of appeal before us is a legal ground relates to passing the order under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 without appreciating true

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

14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working of claim of Rs. 81,99,928/— as well as working

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

14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working of claim of Rs. 81,99,928/— as well as working

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

14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working of claim of Rs. 81,99,928/— as well as working

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

14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working of claim of Rs. 81,99,928/— as well as working

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

14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working of claim of Rs. 81,99,928/— as well as working

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

14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working of claim of Rs. 81,99,928/— as well as working

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

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

10. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on the record .Upon careful consideration of the rival contentions and the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The reasons recorded by the AO were based on specific, credible, and tangible material, including

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

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

10. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on the record .Upon careful consideration of the rival contentions and the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The reasons recorded by the AO were based on specific, credible, and tangible material, including

HEERA LAL KASARA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. The objections of the assessee were duly disposed off by the AO vide his letter dated 15.12.2016.Thereafter, the AO issued show cause notice asking the assessee to show cause as to why the undisclosed GP of Rs. 47,79,046/- should not be treated as income from undisclosed sources vide letter

PREETI SINGHVI L/H SHRI AJAY SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

10 E Road Sardarpura, Jodhpur 342001, Rajasthan [PAN: AOOPS6234G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None (W/S) Respondent by : Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 09.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated

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)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee. 37. The Ld. AR further

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

10. After such direction for restoration of the assessment before the assessing officer, CIT(A) held that such restoration is due to partly allowance of Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in Form 35. For a judicious person such a reason does not appear a proper reason as Ground No. 3 itself got redundant when Ground No. 2 allowed

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10 Smt. Jaya Mogra 7. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. The ld. DR strongly opposed the argument of the ld. AR of the assessee saying that the in this case provision of section 275(1)(c) will apply and submitted that even the appeal filed before

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10 (Bombay High Court)] 4.2. Non-application of mind is a ground for interference under Section 263 in the case of CIT v. ShriBhagwan Das, (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All) the Division Bench opined that exercise of power under Section 263 was proper when there was no discussion regarding the question as to whether the amount of income shown

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

10. The CIT(A) has extensively dealt with this issue in his order and considered the various contention raised by the AO and also the submissions made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The summary of his findings given in the order for A.Y. 2016-17 are reproduced as under: "The submissions of the appellant has been carefully perused

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

10. The CIT(A) has extensively dealt with this issue in his order and considered the various contention raised by the AO and also the submissions made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The summary of his findings given in the order for A.Y. 2016-17 are reproduced as under: "The submissions of the appellant has been carefully perused

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

10. The CIT(A) has extensively dealt with this issue in his order and considered the various contention raised by the AO and also the submissions made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The summary of his findings given in the order for A.Y. 2016-17 are reproduced as under: "The submissions of the appellant has been carefully perused