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

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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)

22. While evaluating the above disclosure, we find that the respondents seek to assert that at the relevant time the online portal supported a " flawless filing" of Form 10. They further aver that the total filing count of Form 10 between 01 October 2016 to 31 October 2016 was 3687. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the respondents argue

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

22-3-23. CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). 2.4 Thus, relying upon the judgments of Apex Court, Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal, the penalty levied herein the case is based upon estimated income basis is liable to be deleted. 2.5 In view of the forgoing judgments and material facts, the appellant humbly prays

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

22 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd enquiry, there is no reason why the material which had already come on record though subsequent to the making of the assessment, cannot be taken into consideration by him. (CIT v. Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1 (SC)) 9. REVISION OF ORDER UNDER 263 WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION

M.P. POONIA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

22 of the appeal order dated 27.9.2018 and in para 2 (5) at page 3 and 4 of the appeal order dated 22.10.2019, has accepted/not disputed that against the estimated house hold expenditure of Rs. 3,60,000/- by the AO, the assessee has declared withdrawals of Rs. 3,91,585/- for house hold expenditure.” 3. Brief facts

LEELA RAM METHANI,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad170/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) Vs Shri Leela Ram Methani, The Ito Near Bank Of Baroda, Ward-1, Gulabpura, Bhilwara Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akrpm2107M

22-02-2019 for the assessment year 2011-12 raising therein following grounds of appeal:- 2 ITA170/JODH/2019 SHRI LEELA RAM METHANI VS ITO, WARD-1, BHILWARA ‘’1. The impugned additions of Rs.25,25,000 made in the order u/s 143(3)/147 dated 20.12.2018 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various

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

reassessment proceedings and in response to the said notice the appellant filed a return of income and also form 10CCB. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that it is well accepted principle of law that beneficial provisions should be given liberal construction and once the assessee has satisfied the conditions laid down for claiming deduction / exemption under

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68 are not attracted in this case.\nFurther, in this case for the shares trading not a single paisa was received by the\nassessee from the broker Seema Securities. All the transactions were made on\ncredit and the amount of profit was also not received by the assessee from the\nbroker during the year.\nTherefore, any addition

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 148 of the Act and in the absence of a notice to the assessee against whom reassessment order is proposed, the said order is held to be invalid.” 20 Smt. Pushpa Chhajer q] Further also rely on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Charan Singh (P.B. Page 217 to 224). In light

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

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

section 6 of the Incometax Act,\nbut the sources of income were different. The Patna High Court observed : \"Now this\nsection relating to appeals is enacted for the benefit of the subject and also, to the limited\nextent therein stated, for the benefit of the Crown. But the subject-matter of the appeal is\nthe assessment and the scope

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

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

section 6 of the Incometax Act,\nbut the sources of income were different. The Patna High Court observed : \"Now this\nsection relating to appeals is enacted for the benefit of the subject and also, to the limited\nextent therein stated, for the benefit of the Crown. But the subject-matter of the appeal is\nthe assessment and the scope