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

section 263(2), the notice issued on 30-4- 2009 was barred by limitation. 6.4 In Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2021) 90 ITR TRIB (Trib) 554 (Mum), it was held that: 23 | P a g e "10. A perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under s. 147 of the Act, as reproduced in the body

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

24,875/- as on 01.04.2013 inspite of monthly repayment of Rs. 2,350/- till May 2011, Rs. 3,750/- till Aug 2012, Rs. 5,375/- till July 2013 and it rises to Rs. 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

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

24,875/- as on 01.04.2013 inspite of monthly repayment of Rs. 2,350/- till May 2011, Rs. 3,750/- till Aug 2012, Rs. 5,375/- till July 2013 and it rises to Rs. 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

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

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess total income for entire six years block assessment period\neven in case of completed/unabated assessment – Held, yes – Whether in case\nof search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, Assessing\nOfficer assumes jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A and that\nall pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated Held, yes\nWhether in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no\naddition

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.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. 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

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

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)

24. We additionally note that the respondents allude to 3687 digital submissions of Form 10 in the month of October 2016. We have not been provided any further details with respect to how that number would be representative or proof of a broad or universal functionality of the filing portal when compared with the body of assessees seeking to accumulate

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings an invalid........” iv] On the identical facts the Hon’ble ITAT Agar Bench in the case of Shri. Raj Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) ITA No. 408/Agra/2018 Date of Order : 22/03/2019 "29. The text of the reasons recorded do proves that virtually there has been no application of mind by the learned Assessing officer so as to form

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings an invalid........” iv] On the identical facts the Hon’ble ITAT Agar Bench in the case of Shri. Raj Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) ITA No. 408/Agra/2018 Date of Order : 22/03/2019 "29. The text of the reasons recorded do proves that virtually there has been no application of mind by the learned Assessing officer so as to form

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

reassessment proceedings carried out u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act and taking the basis of statement given by the assessee during the course of survey carried out on 23-01-2018 u/s 133A of the Act. We notice that the alleged addition is based on the statement given during the course of survey. It has been

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

24,592/-made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with statutory requirement of provision of section 35AD(7) read with section 801A

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