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

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. 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

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

reassessment. 1.4 Thus, the notice issued in the name of M/s. Kishriyaji Filling station, Rishabhdeo (PB page 03) is without verifying the facts of existence of firm and its partners, in casual manner on non-existing entity. 1.5 Furthermore, that AR of Kanak Kumar Jain has categorically objected at twice for issue 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

reassessment. 1.4 Thus, the notice issued in the name of M/s. Kishriyaji Filling station, Rishabhdeo (PB page 03) is without verifying the facts of existence of firm and its partners, in casual manner on non-existing entity. 1.5 Furthermore, that AR of Kanak Kumar Jain has categorically objected at twice for issue 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

reassessment. 1.4 Thus, the notice issued in the name of M/s. Kishriyaji Filling station, Rishabhdeo (PB page 03) is without verifying the facts of existence of firm and its partners, in casual manner on non-existing entity. 1.5 Furthermore, that AR of Kanak Kumar Jain has categorically objected at twice for issue 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

reassessment. Thus, the notice issued in the name of M/s. Kishriyaji Filling station, Rishabhdeo (PB page 03) is without verifying the facts of existence of firm and its partners, in casual manner on non-existing entity. 1.4 Furthermore, that AR of Kanak Kumar Jain has categorically objected at twice for issue of notice on non-existent assessee, ld. Assessing officer

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

reassessment. Thus, the notice issued in the name of M/s. Kishriyaji Filling station, Rishabhdeo (PB page 03) is without verifying the facts of existence of firm and its partners, in casual manner on non-existing entity. 1.4 Furthermore, that AR of Kanak Kumar Jain has categorically objected at twice for issue of notice on non-existent assessee, ld. Assessing officer

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

PRAKASH JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleprakash Jain Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Rajendra Jain, Advocate Tax, Circle-2 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th Udaipur B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Acepj 5236 H Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) 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 The Assessee, Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The“Nfac/Cit(A)”] Dated 29/08/2025 With Respect To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Id. Counsel For The Assessee Vehemently Submitted That The Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Union Of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal 167 Taxmann.Com 70. The Ar Briefly Narrated The Facts Of The Case That Notice U/S 148 Of The Income-Tax Act

46. The Id. counsel for the assessee contended that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 would have to be in compliant with the new regime of reassessment as explained by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 167 taxmann.com 70. The Ld. AR argued that fresh notice u/s 148 of 3 Asst. Year