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

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

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

reassessment proceeding U/s 147 of the Act without obtaining proper satisfaction and sanction from the superior authority U/s 151 of the Act. I have carefully considered the facts and submissions of the Learned AR and the decisions relied on by him. This is 3 SMT SHAHNAJ VS ITO, WARD-2, CHURU the case where originally the appellant had not filed

ITO, PHALODI vs. VARSHA MILLS, KHICHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleito Varsha Mills, Khichan Phalodi E-51, Industrial Estate, Khichan, Phalodi, Jodhpur – 342308 Pan No.: Aaifv 9450 D Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate (Virtual) Smt. Runi Pal – Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 07.02.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 69A On Account Of Un-Explained Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & By Invoking Provisions Of Section 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 145(3) because the assessee failed to submit documentary evidences in support of NRV of guar gum adopted by the assessee and in the absence of which correct picture and true profit of the assessee firm could not be ascertained from the books of accounts. She argued that the AO has issued a show cause notice to the assessee

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

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

10. Copy of CIT(A)'s order for AY 2019-20 72-104 11. Copy of assessment order for AY 2019-20 105-119 6. The ld. DR is heard, who relied on the findings of the CIT(A) and more particularly advanced similar contentions as stated in the order of ld.CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contentions

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

3 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 504/Jodh/2018: "1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance of provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were

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

3 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 504/Jodh/2018: "1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance of provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were

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

3 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 504/Jodh/2018: "1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance of provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were

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

3 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 504/Jodh/2018: "1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance of provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were

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

3 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 504/Jodh/2018: "1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance of provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were

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

3 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 504/Jodh/2018: "1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance of provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were

M/S. RASIK PRIYA RESORTS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Jodh/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., V Of Income Tax, 11, Mangal Complex, S. Central Circle-2, Udaipur. Saifan Choraha, Bedla Road, Udaipur. Pan: Aafcr 5546 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Rakesh Lodha – Ca Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

reassess the ‘total income’ for the entire six years period/block assessment period.” 5.2 Thus, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), in the case of Abated assessment, AO has power to make addition even in absence of incriminating material based on other facts, M/s.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. Ltd.,[A] documents. Therefore, we do not find any merit in Ground

M/S. RASIK PRIYA RESORTS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Jodh/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., V Of Income Tax, 11, Mangal Complex, S. Central Circle-2, Udaipur. Saifan Choraha, Bedla Road, Udaipur. Pan: Aafcr 5546 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Rakesh Lodha – Ca Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

reassess the ‘total income’ for the entire six years period/block assessment period.” 5.2 Thus, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), in the case of Abated assessment, AO has power to make addition even in absence of incriminating material based on other facts, M/s.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. Ltd.,[A] documents. Therefore, we do not find any merit in Ground

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

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

10. 34. We, accordingly, allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned order under Section 148A (d) dated 31 March 2023 and the consequent initiation of reassessment proceedings through notice under Section 148 of the Act of even date. 5.1 We also rely upon the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Navjeevan Charitable Trust

MANOJ KUMAR KHUBANI,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR 2 JDH, JODHPUR

In the result, stands ALLOWED

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

section 133A of the Act, loose papers were impounded wherein unaccounted transactions are recorded and assessee has offered undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on the basis of discrepancies found in the impounded documents. After this observation, the AO has reproduced the statements of the assessee recorded during survey on 8.2.2018. He has also reproduced the letter given

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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 the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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 the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened