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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess under Section147or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the Assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1stdayof April, 2001." 29. Interpreting the said provision in Honda Siel Power Products versusDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, (2012) 340 ITR 53 (Delhi

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

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

8,375/- & Rs. 9,625/- during F.Y. 2013-14. His second debt A/c with UBI begins with Rs. 54,400/- as on 01.04.2011 rises to Rs. 76,800/- as on 01.04.2012 and comes down to Rs. 38,400/- as on 01.04.2011, inspite of monthly payment of Rs. 3,200/- throughout the F.Y. 2011-12, 2012:13 & 2013-14. Therefore when

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

8,375/- & Rs. 9,625/- during F.Y. 2013-14. His second debt A/c with UBI begins with Rs. 54,400/- as on 01.04.2011 rises to Rs. 76,800/- as on 01.04.2012 and comes down to Rs. 38,400/- as on 01.04.2011, inspite of monthly payment of Rs. 3,200/- throughout the F.Y. 2011-12, 2012:13 & 2013-14. Therefore when

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)

8. On the other hand, the Revenue relied upon the findings of the AO and the CIT(A), who placed significant emphasis on the investigation report and the sworn statement of Shri Mukesh Choksi, the main operator of the Mahasagar Group. The statement recorded by the Investigation Wing revealed that Shri Choksi was in the business of providing accommodation entries

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)

8. On the other hand, the Revenue relied upon the findings of the AO and the CIT(A), who placed significant emphasis on the investigation report and the sworn statement of Shri Mukesh Choksi, the main operator of the Mahasagar Group. The statement recorded by the Investigation Wing revealed that Shri Choksi was in the business of providing accommodation entries

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record and gone through the various judicial precedent cited by both the parties to drive home to their respective contentions. The bench noted the assessee has disputed the addition of Rs. 39,70,000/- made by the ld. AO and the relevant finding on the issue

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

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 of Rs. 16,57,517/— Hence to this

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

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 of Rs. 16,57,517/— Hence to this

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

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 of Rs. 16,57,517/— Hence to this

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

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 of Rs. 16,57,517/— Hence to this

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

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 of Rs. 16,57,517/— Hence to this

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

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 of Rs. 16,57,517/— Hence to this

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8 TWO apartments. The fact that at the time is read when the inspector inspected the premises, together. the flats were occupied by two different tenants is not the ground to hold that the apartment is not a one residential unit. The fact that the assessce could have purchased both the flats in one single sale deed or could have

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

8. In the recent decision of ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of CIT vs. Audyogik Shikshan Mandal reported in (2022) 36 NYPTTJ 272 (Pune) it was held that where the audit report was filed even at the appellate state the same should be considered and deduction cannot be disallowed. Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Kolkata high

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

13. Tonk Areas up to a distance of 8 kms. from the municipal limits in all directions. 14. Udaipur Areas up to a distance of 8 kms. from the municipal limits in all directions. What if the agriculture land is not falling within any municipality named in the Notification by Government?? In that case, the agriculture land is not capital

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

8,02,316/-. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was gathered that during the period under consideration the building for which loans were taken was under construction and therefore, the interest expenses were related to pre- construction period and were not allowable as per provisions of Income-tax Act. Therefore, vide notice dated 16.03.2016, the assessee was asked

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

8,02,316/-. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was gathered that during the period under consideration the building for which loans were taken was under construction and therefore, the interest expenses were related to pre- construction period and were not allowable as per provisions of Income-tax Act. Therefore, vide notice dated 16.03.2016, the assessee was asked