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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

NAVKAR WOLLENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BIKANER vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenavkar Woollens Private Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Rani Bazar, Bikaner, H.O. Income Tax, Circle – 3 Bikaner, Bikaner Bikaner - 334001 Pan No. Aabcn 9287 G Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr & Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2014-15 Challenging Therein Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 2,34,04,480/- On Account Of Difference Between The Fair Market Value & The Issue Price Of The Equity Shares By Questioning The Method Of Valuation.

reassessment proceedings. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who has confirmed the finding of the AO by 3 Asst. Year: 2014-15 observing that the appellant’s claim that it has used a valuation method substantiated to the AO’s satisfaction was found unacceptable being in- consistent with Rule

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

56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

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

56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

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

56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

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

56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

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

56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 147 was initiated to verify the source of Investment made in purchase of house. 16 Smt. Pushpa Chhajer It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect ofcompleted assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect ofcompleted/unabated 8 Tarun Murdia , Udaipur assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence ofany incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 orrequisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. 3. The following facts is also supporting

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

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

section 145 are not found to\nbe relevant in the facts of this case. The AO has not disturbed the book results as the cash\ntransactions are not part of regular books of accounts.\nThe ld CIT(A) has also tried to distinguish the decisions relied upon. Thus on the\nbasis of above observations the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56,670/-. After processing U/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the act dated 02.09.2014 was issued and duly served to the assessee. The assessee earned long term capital gain of Rs. 65,06,891/- and claimed exemption

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 was initiated to verify the source of Investment made in purchase of house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat AO had no basis