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)

4). Statements recorded u/s 133A is not given evidentiary value therefore, admission made during such statement cannot be made the basis of any addition.” 1.10 It is submitted that CBDT also in its Circular dated 10th March, 2003 had stated that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer should rely upon the evidences gathered during the course

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

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

4), Jaipur in ITA No. 1256/Jp/2024 dt. 29.01.2025 has decided the legal grounds\nof appeal, even not decided by the ld. CIT(A). Copy is enclosed.\n2. Now on the legal issue and merit we rely upon on our WS, paper book, additional evidence,\nremand report and comments on remand report etc, which may kindly consider.\n1. Incorrect or wrong

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

4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose of discussion. The appellant is a co-operative society, engaged

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

4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose of discussion. The appellant is a co-operative society, engaged

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

4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose of discussion. The appellant is a co-operative society, engaged

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

4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose of discussion. The appellant is a co-operative society, engaged

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

4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose of discussion. The appellant is a co-operative society, engaged

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

4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose of discussion. The appellant is a co-operative society, engaged

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)

section 69C, stating that no evidence was brought on record by the AO to establish that any commission was actually paid. The alleged figure of Rs. 1,17,900/- was presumptive and based on the generic modus operandi recorded by the Investigation Wing. 8. On the other hand, the Revenue relied upon the findings

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)

section 69C, stating that no evidence was brought on record by the AO to establish that any commission was actually paid. The alleged figure of Rs. 1,17,900/- was presumptive and based on the generic modus operandi recorded by the Investigation Wing. 8. On the other hand, the Revenue relied upon the findings

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

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A

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

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

11 & No adverse pg 12 of the assessee acquired two residential flats 12 of the inference order namely a) Mayurshrishti for Rs. 38,03010/- order at drawn by ld. and b) Shanti Gardens for Rs. 37,73,590/- page No. 80- CIT(A) comprising two agreements.” 81 of PB 4. CIT v/s D Ananda Basappa

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. ASHAPURNA INFRAPROJECT PVT. LTD., , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

reassess the total income for the above said six years. This section further provides that all pending assessment or re-assessment pending as on the date of search shall abate. Hence the assessments of the assessment years falling within the period of above said six years which are not pending, i.e., which have attained finality shall not abate. Assessments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. ASHAPURNA INFRAPROJECT PVT. LTD., , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

reassess the total income for the above said six years. This section further provides that all pending assessment or re-assessment pending as on the date of search shall abate. Hence the assessments of the assessment years falling within the period of above said six years which are not pending, i.e., which have attained finality shall not abate. Assessments

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

11 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd 5.2.2 As regards the disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act the issue was covered based on the jurisdictional high court decision and therefore, the issue was debatable and law does not permit the review of each every order after