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 order framed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2009–10. 2. Since the issues involved in both the above appeals are common and were heard together, therefore, they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

254 ITR 61 (Punj. & Har.) (FB), it was further held\nthat filing of audit report under section 32AB (1)/(5) along with return is not\nmandatory.\n9. In the present case, since the assessee has also submitted the required\naudit report in form 10CCB to claim deduction u/s 35AD before completion of\nthe assessment and hence a liberal construction

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

254 ITR 61 (Punj. & Har.) (FB), it was further held that filing of audit report under section 32AB (1)/(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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

254 ITR 61 (Punj. & Har.) (FB), it was further held\nthat filing of audit report under section 32AB (1)/(5) along with return is not\nmandatory.\n9. In the present case, since the assessee has also submitted the required\naudit report in form 10CCB to claim deduction u/s 35AD before completion of\nthe assessment and hence a liberal construction

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

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 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a regular IT assessee. For the year he has Filed his ITR for the A.Y. 2007-08 on 30.03.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.99

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

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)

254 CTR 228(SC) had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the department and affirmed the above decision of Madras High Court as below: “An admission is extremely an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive; and it is open to the person who made admission to show that it is incorrect