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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

51,58,174/- u/s. 14A of the act and disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of 7 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, due to lack of enquiry and due to incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts, the assessment order is erroneous

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

51,806/- were made during the year) during the appellate proceedings. The said Form 27C is found to be issued on 05.04.2018. Contrary to what has been stated by the AO in his order, the appellant claimed that the said Form 27C was furnished to the AO during the proceedings u/s 206C(6A). The appellant was therefore requested to furnish

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

51,806/- were made during the year) during the appellate proceedings. The said Form 27C is found to be issued on 05.04.2018. Contrary to what has been stated by the AO in his order, the appellant claimed that the said Form 27C was furnished to the AO during the proceedings u/s 206C(6A). The appellant was therefore requested to furnish

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

51,806/- were made during the year) during the appellate proceedings. The said Form 27C is found to be issued on 05.04.2018. Contrary to what has been stated by the AO in his order, the appellant claimed that the said Form 27C was furnished to the AO during the proceedings u/s 206C(6A). The appellant was therefore requested to furnish

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

51-53. Sunil Pagaria vs. ITO Subsequently, the then Ld. AO issued notice u/s 154 dated 25/04/2018 proposing rectification of mistake to be apparent from the record with respect to allowability of exemption u/s 54F restricting to Rs. 4451997/ instead of exemption claimed of Rs. 6506891/-. In 154 proceedings, it has been categorically contended: (1) Per law in force

PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

51,720,\nthat the properties were not shown in the stock-in-trade and capital\naccount and that he also derived income from job work. The\nAssessing Officer assessed his income at Rs.27,93,750. The Principal\nCommissioner passed an order under section 263 of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 on the ground that the Assessing Officer had passed

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

51-52 the reasons recorded u/s 148 of the Act. 7 Copy of disposal of objection raised by the assessee 53-55 8 Copy of show cause notice dated 20/12/2016 56-57 9 Copy of letter dated 26/12/2016 in response to show 58-60 cause notice issued by the Ld. AO 10 Copy of Bills, ledger account and other supporting

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

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Reassessment—Validity—Grounds alleged in notice under s. 148 incorrect or non existent—ITO's jurisdictions is ousted the moment this situation comes to his knowledge. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180ITR 319 (P&H). On the basis of the aforesaid legal precedents it is clear that simply mentioning certain facts without application of mind

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blechainaram V/P Doli Tehsil Luni, Jodhpur - 342001. Pan No Biкpr9270C Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Ito, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur. Shri Anil Bhansali, Advocate. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit (Sr. D.R.) 21.05.2025. 26.06.2025. 17

51,340/- without appreciating the facts on merits of the case that disputed addition has been made without any tangible material in possession of the AO, invoking the extended period of limitation under the provisions of I.T. Act for reopening of the assessment. The AR contended that the AO has made the addition and the NFAC uphold the said addition

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR. vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

51,340/- without appreciating the facts on merits of the case that disputed addition has been made without any tangible material in possession of the AO, invoking the extended period of limitation under the provisions of I.T. Act for reopening of the assessment. The AR contended that the AO has made the addition and the NFAC uphold the said addition

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

51,340/- without appreciating the facts on merits of the case that disputed addition has been made without any tangible material in possession of the AO, invoking the extended period of limitation under the provisions of I.T. Act for reopening of the assessment. The AR contended that the AO has made the addition and the NFAC uphold the said addition

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

51,274/- (for A.Y.203-14 to A.Y. 2016-17).\nThe AO further observed that another excel sheet named POC method/flat\ndetails/ found at new folder/new folder/work/other desktop & excel last\ncontains the details of agreement amount, amount received in FY 2012-13, FY\n2013-14 and unbilled sales, in respect of 27 flats of projects “Sanchi Enclave”.\nThe

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

51,779 6,96,08,565 34,43,214 2015-16 10,40,76,946 7,59,08,853 2,81,68,093 6 622/Jodh/2024 & Others Assessment Years

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

51,779 6,96,08,565 34,43,214 2015-16 10,40,76,946 7,59,08,853 2,81,68,093 6 622/Jodh/2024 & Others Assessment Years

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

51,779 6,96,08,565 34,43,214 2015-16 10,40,76,946 7,59,08,853 2,81,68,093 6 622/Jodh/2024 & Others Assessment Years

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

51,779 6,96,08,565 34,43,214 2015-16 10,40,76,946 7,59,08,853 2,81,68,093 6 622/Jodh/2024 & Others Assessment Years

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

51,779 6,96,08,565 34,43,214 2015-16 10,40,76,946 7,59,08,853 2,81,68,093 6 622/Jodh/2024 & Others Assessment Years