KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

21 of 1998, Section 65 (w.e.f.\n1.10.1998).] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 29 (w.e.f.\n10.7.1978).] in the course of any proceeding under this Act in respect of any such firm as\nis referred to in that sub-section is satisfied that the firm was guilty of any of the acts\nspecified in Chapter

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

21 of 1998, Section 65 (w.e.f.\n1.10.1998).] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 29 (w.e.f.\n10.7.1978).] in the course of any proceeding under this Act in respect of any such firm as\nis referred to in that sub-section is satisfied that the firm was guilty of any of the acts\nspecified in Chapter

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

21 of 1998, Section 65 (w.e.f.\n1.10.1998).] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 29 (w.e.f.\n10.7.1978).] in the course of any proceeding under this Act in respect of any such firm as\nis referred to in that sub-section is satisfied that the firm was guilty of any of the acts\nspecified in Chapter

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

21 of 1998, Section 65 (w.e.f.\n1.10.1998).] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 29 (w.e.f.\n10.7.1978).] in the course of any proceeding under this Act in respect of any such firm as\nis referred to in that sub-section is satisfied that the firm was guilty of any of the acts\nspecified in Chapter

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

5-11), held that: "Section 263, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether where an assessment has been reopened under section 147 in relation to a particular ground or in relation to certain specified grounds and subsequent to passing of order of reassessment, jurisdiction

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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)

reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The reasons recorded by the AO were based on specific, credible, and tangible material, including the statement of an identified entry operator, corroborated by details of transactions, amounts, and investor names. The AO is not expected to conclusively establish escapement of income at the stage of recording reasons. What is required is the existence

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)

reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The reasons recorded by the AO were based on specific, credible, and tangible material, including the statement of an identified entry operator, corroborated by details of transactions, amounts, and investor names. The AO is not expected to conclusively establish escapement of income at the stage of recording reasons. What is required is the existence

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)

21,700/-. The assessee filed a rectification application before CPC, which was rejected, and thereafter filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), however, upheld the action of CPC, holding that since the audit report in Form 10B was verified only on 17.04.2023 beyond the due date for filing such report the CPC was justified in denying

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

21(ITAT Mumbai) it was held by Hon'ble ITAT that the provisions of section 50C are deeming provisions and mandatory in nature. The application of such provisions is made by operation of law. Exception to these provisions can be made only in accordance with law, as provided in section 50C only. The Assessing Officer did not raise any query

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)

5 Manoj Kumar Khubani  ITAT Delhi in DCIT vs. Bansal Credits Ltd. in ITA No.3918/Del/2013 dated 19/09/2016  ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of Ajit Singh Melhotra vs. ACIT ITA No. 63/IND/2019 dated 22/10/2020  ITAT Indore in Alankar Jewelers vs. DCIT in ITA No.992/Ind./2019 dated 30/04/2021  ITAT Ahmedabad in Abhi Developers vs. ITO (2007) 12 SOT 444 (Ahd)  ITAT

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

5) along with return is not mandatory. 9. In the present case, since the assessee has also submitted the required audit report in form 10CCB to claim deduction u/s 35AD before completion of the assessment and hence a liberal construction of exemption provisions is required to be taken when the substantial compliance of the conditions had been made

PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nSd\n(DRAMITHA LAL MEENA)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBy Oder\nAssistant Registrar,\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,\nJodhpur Bench,\nJodhpur.", "summary": {"facts": "The assessee's original return declared an income of Rs. 4,61,380/-. An assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was completed at Rs. 4,61,380/-. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were