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

4) The CIT (Appeals)\nSd/-\n(DR. S. Seethalakshmi)\nJudicial Member", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, L/H of a partner of a dissolved partnership firm (M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station), filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order upholding reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147. The firm ceased to exist before the notice u/s 148 was issued, as all its partners

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

4) The CIT (Appeals)\n(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.\nSd/-\n(DR. S. Seethalakshmi)\nJudicial Member\nTrue Copy\nBy order", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, a legal heir of a partner in a dissolved firm, appealed against an order confirming a reassessment. The firm had ceased to exist as all partners had died before the issuance of a notice under Section

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

4) The CIT (Appeals)\nSd/-\n(DR. S. Seethalakshmi)\nJudicial Member\n(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.\nTrue Copy\nBy order", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, L/H of a partner of a dissolved partnership firm, M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station, appeals against an order confirming the validity of a reassessment notice and assessment. The firm's partners had all expired, and the firm

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

4) The CIT (Appeals)\nSd/-\n(DR. S. Seethalakshmi)\nJudicial Member\nTrue Copy\nBy order", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, representing the legal heir of a partner in a dissolved firm, appealed against an order confirming reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2011-12 to 2015-16. The firm ceased to exist as all partners had expired before the notice

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

250(4) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) is competent to make such\nfurther enquiry as he thinks fit or cause further enquiries to be made by the\nIncome-tax Officer, under remand. He is further empowered to make such fresh\nassessment and determine, where necessary, the amount of tax payable on the basis\nof such fresh assessment

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.”

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 2 Heera Lal Kasara, Udaipur. “1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the action of ld. AO in initiating the proceedings u/s 148, which is bad in law and bad on facts. The original assessment was made

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

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961,\nfor the assessment year 2014-15.\n2.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) erred in\nconfirming the AO's order dated 28.12.2017 passed for the AY 2014-15 u/s\n153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act without

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

250. 6. The Ld. CIT (DR) in her contentions referred to the relevant paras of the assessment order on facts and merits of the case which were neither addressed by the Ld. NFAC while relying on the Tribunal decision in the assessee own case wherein the Tribunal followed judgment declined in the assessee's brother's Mr. RameshRaj Bohra (supra

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

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

250/- as on 01.04.2012 further rises to Rs. 1,24,875/- 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

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

250/- as on 01.04.2012 further rises to Rs. 1,24,875/- 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

250, highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills

MITHLESH SUHALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08, date of order 11/02/2023. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Udaipur (in short, ‘the Ld.AO’) passed u/s 143(3) / 254 / 147 of the Act, date of order 30/03/2015. 2 Shri Mithleh Suhalka

JAISALMER CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,JAISALMER vs. ITO WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

reassessment proceedings, is patently incorrect and substantially higher. Thus the penalty amount was not worked out as per law. The appellant condemned unheard on this issue. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional legal

VINOD (RATAN) SUHALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

4. The impugned order relied upon the following extract of Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory[2013] 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250 to delete the penalty:— "The Assessing Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is concealment

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect ofcompleted assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect ofcompleted/unabated 8 Tarun Murdia , Udaipur assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence ofany incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 orrequisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. 3. The following facts is also supporting

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

section 145 are not found to\nbe relevant in the facts of this case. The AO has not disturbed the book results as the cash\ntransactions are not part of regular books of accounts.\nThe ld CIT(A) has also tried to distinguish the decisions relied upon. Thus on the\nbasis of above observations the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee\nhas raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n“1.The CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without\nconsidering the grounds of the assessee regarding reopening of assessment.\n2. The CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without\ndiscussing and considering