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

276 (Guj.).\n1.8\nHerein the case it is proved that neither the objections were considered nor any\nspeaking order was passed by ld. AO.\n1.9\nFurthermore, the foundational notice u/s 148 of the Act was neither served upon\nthe assessee firm bearing PAN AABFK2499L thereupon nor validly issued upon\nthe legal representatives in terms of 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

276 (Guj.).\n1.8 Herein the case it is proved that neither the objections were considered nor any\nspeaking order was passed by ld. AO.\n1.9 Furthermore, the foundational notice u/s 148 of the Act was neither served upon\nthe assessee firm bearing PAN AABFK2499L thereupon nor validly issued upon\nthe legal representatives in terms of 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

276 (Guj.).\n1.7\nHerein the case it is proved that neither the objections were considered nor any\nspeaking order was passed by ld. AO.\n1.8\nFurthermore, the foundational notice u/s 148 of the Act was neither served upon\nthe assessee firm bearing PAN AABFK2499L thereupon nor validly issued upon\nthe legal representatives in terms of 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

276 (Guj.).\n1.7 Herein the case it is proved that neither the objections were considered nor any\nspeaking order was passed by ld. AO.\n1.8 Furthermore, the foundational notice u/s 148 of the Act was neither served upon\nthe assessee firm bearing PAN AABFK2499L thereupon nor validly issued upon\nthe legal representatives in terms of section

ITO, PHALODI vs. VARSHA MILLS, KHICHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleito Varsha Mills, Khichan Phalodi E-51, Industrial Estate, Khichan, Phalodi, Jodhpur – 342308 Pan No.: Aaifv 9450 D Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate (Virtual) Smt. Runi Pal – Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 07.02.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 69A On Account Of Un-Explained Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & By Invoking Provisions Of Section 145(3) Of The Act.

276 (Bombay) considered the issue of non-moving stores and spares which corroded over a period of time due to wear and tear, written off in the subject year and held that where assessee's non moving stores and spares were corroded over a period of time due to wear and tear, assessee would be entitled to write off same