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

reassessment.\n1.4\nThus, the notice issued in the name of M/s. Kishriyaji Filling station, Rishabhdeo\n(PB page 03) is without verifying the facts of existence of firm and its partners, in\ncasual manner on non-existing entity.\n1.5\nFurthermore, that AR of Kanak Kumar Jain has categorically objected at twice for\nissue of notice on non-existent assessee

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

reassessment.\n1.4 Thus, the notice issued in the name of M/s. Kishriyaji Filling station, Rishabhdeo\n(PB page 03) is without verifying the facts of existence of firm and its partners, in\ncasual manner on non-existing entity.\n1.5 Furthermore, that AR of Kanak Kumar Jain has categorically objected at twice for\nissue of notice on non-existent assessee

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

reassessment.\nThus, the notice issued in the name of M/s. Kishriyaji Filling station, Rishabhdeo\n(PB page 03) is without verifying the facts of existence of firm and its partners, in\ncasual manner on non-existing entity.\n1.4\nFurthermore, that AR of Kanak Kumar Jain has categorically objected at twice for\nissue of notice on non-existent assessee, ld. Assessing

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

reassessment.\nThus, the notice issued in the name of M/s. Kishriyaji Filling station, Rishabhdeo\n(PB page 03) is without verifying the facts of existence of firm and its partners, in\ncasual manner on non-existing entity.\n1.4 Furthermore, that AR of Kanak Kumar Jain has categorically objected at twice for\nissue of notice on non-existent assessee, ld. Assessing

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

46,700/- on nine occasions was\nreflected in his bank account, whereas he had made no such deposits. The assessee\nfiled all the evidences in support of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.\nCIT(A) left the legal issue unanswered. He set aside the case to the AO to decide it\nafresh.\n4. Now the assessee

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 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the total taxable income comes to Rs.6,71,88,566/- (Rs.1,46,35,981/- + Rs.5,25,52,586/), therefore, the assessment done at NIL income by the AO is erroneous. Accordingly, the subjected assessment was set 46 | P a g e aside to the AO to do de novo assessment

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.”

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. The objections of the assessee were duly disposed off by the AO vide his letter dated 15.12.2016.Thereafter, the AO issued show cause notice asking the assessee to show cause as to why the undisclosed GP of Rs. 47,79,046/- should not be treated as income from undisclosed sources vide letter

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

46,332/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated

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

46,332/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated

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

46,332/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated

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

46,332/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated

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

46,332/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated

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

46,332/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

46 ITR 36 (ITAT Chennai)]) 5. MERE FILING OF DETAILS BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUFFICIENT AND DOES NOT ITSELF CONSTITUTES APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPER VERIFICATION AND SPECIFIC ENQUIRIES REQUIRED TO BE DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IF NOT DONE MEANS NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO CALLING OF INFOMRATION BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 or has within a period of three years after that date construct, "a" residential house. The term

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

46,546/- is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 3 The Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the 100% of expense which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 4 The appellant pray for suitable costs. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm, filed

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

46,980/-, interest amounting to Rs. 1,30,317/- only is related to rental income as under and the balance amount of Rs. 3,16,663/- is related to construction activities of the assessee. As the interest expenses amounting to Rs. 3,16,663/- are related to pre-construction period and the same are capital in nature. Therefore, interest expenses

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

46,980/-, interest amounting to Rs. 1,30,317/- only is related to rental income as under and the balance amount of Rs. 3,16,663/- is related to construction activities of the assessee. As the interest expenses amounting to Rs. 3,16,663/- are related to pre-construction period and the same are capital in nature. Therefore, interest expenses