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

42-C of Indian Partnership Act hence, no assessment\ncan be made on it in so far as per catena of various decision of different High Court\nand Apex Court are concerned. The ld. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate that no\nvalid notice served on appellant as no notice can be issued in name of dead\nperson/non existing entity

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

42-C of Indian Partnership Act hence, no assessment\ncan be made on it in so far as per catena of various decision of different High Court\nand Apex Court are concerned. The ld. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate that no\nvalid notice served on appellant as no notice can be issued in name of dead\nperson/non existing entity

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

42-C of Indian Partnership Act hence, no assessment\ncan be made on it in so far as per catena of various decision of different High Court\nand Apex Court are concerned. The ld. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate that no\nvalid notice served on appellant as no notice can be issued in name of dead\nperson/non existing entity

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

42-C of Indian Partnership Act hence, no assessment\ncan be made on it in so far as per catena of various decision of different High Court\nand Apex Court are concerned. The ld. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate that no\nvalid notice served on appellant as no notice can be issued in name of dead\nperson/non existing entity

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

42) that such development authorities were entitled to the benefit u/s 11 and the second proviso to S. 2(15) of the Act was not applicable to such cases, reached to the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur against denial of registration u/s12AA but the observations made therein support the contention. Further other cases of the development authority are also similarly placed

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

42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before

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

42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before

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

42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before

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

42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before

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

42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before

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

42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

42,193, particularly in the light of fact that the appellant holds good status in society and his children were studying in reputed schools. In the written submissions filed before me, the appellant made contradictory submissions, as on one side he is requesting for deletion of addition. made on account of low household withdrawal, on the other side

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

42 lac and at Bhuvana Rs 2345406/ & not commercial. (Pg No 3, 33 & 34 with break- up, 46-51) 2. Provision of section 54F in force up-to AY 14-15 entitle the assesee to claim exemption, if the assesee within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased

DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 147 and 151 and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued to assessee— Proceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated after recording reasons on basis of information received from Investigation Wing of Department on basis of search and seizure operation. During course of assessment proceedings, assessee was specifically asked to explain and justify transaction with G received as share application money/share capital

SHRI GOPAL SONI ,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Gopal Soni Prop Vs. The Acit, Circle – 1 Durga Silver Home Bikaner. Katla Chowk Nokha Rajasthan. Bikaner-334803, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aemps5097M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

reassess the income u/s 154. The said mistake is not of record That was a debatable matter so no order this section should be made. The power conferred by provisions of Sec. 154/155 is a power to correct mistakes and not a power of review U/S 154, an A.O. cannot be permitted to revise or review his earlier order, there

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee. 37. The Ld. AR further

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened