LALIT JOHARI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad40/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Vs The Acit Shri Lalit Johri 65-A, Bank Colony, Rai Central Circle-2 Ka Bagh, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agfpj 5542 H

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the on the total income determined [under sub-section (1) of section 143 or] on the basis of the earlier assessment aforesaid. 6.3 On a reading of the above sub section (3) of Section 234A, it is clear that the charge of interest u/s 234A would commence from the due date for filing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

7. EXPLANATION 2(a) IN SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE 7.1. It is also worthwhile to note that Explanation 2(a) below section 263 of the Act specifies has further clarified and strengthened and enlarged the scope of section 263 that the that the order passed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Reassessment) Assessment year 2007-08- Where issue as to whether property that was purchased by assessee constituted one flat or two flats for purpose of exemption under section 54F was examined by Assessing Officer in original assessment, Sunil Pagaria vs. ITO reopening of assessment to disallow exemption under section 54F on same facts was not sustainable [In favour of assessee

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

7, 2022\n(2022) 64 CCH 0090 SuratTrib it has been held That Reassessment-Reopening of assessment—\nAO on basis of AIR information noted that assessee made deposit in his bank account in PNB—\nAO recorded that in response to notice under section 148; assessee neither filed return of income\nnor responded—Assessing Officer ultimately by-passing assessment order made

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

reassessment or recomputation and an order imposing a penalty under section 271 and other provisions. In its turn, section 253 provides for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal against orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in regard to the matters mentioned therein. If there has been an appeal against the assessment or other order, the period of limitation for imposing

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

7) 206C(6) 2010- 2011- 125/Jodh/2021 851806/- 21295/- 21934 43,229/- 11 12 2011- 2012- 126/Jodh/2021 10098959/ 252474/- 229751/- 4,82,225/- 12 13 - 2012- 2013- 127/Jodh/2021 3273595/- 81840/- 70374/- 1,52,164/ 13 14 5. Against this assessee has filed appeal before the Honble CIT(A). The assessee has filed WS and details by stating that During the course

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

7) 206C(6) 2010- 2011- 125/Jodh/2021 851806/- 21295/- 21934 43,229/- 11 12 2011- 2012- 126/Jodh/2021 10098959/ 252474/- 229751/- 4,82,225/- 12 13 - 2012- 2013- 127/Jodh/2021 3273595/- 81840/- 70374/- 1,52,164/ 13 14 5. Against this assessee has filed appeal before the Honble CIT(A). The assessee has filed WS and details by stating that During the course

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

7) 206C(6) 2010- 2011- 125/Jodh/2021 851806/- 21295/- 21934 43,229/- 11 12 2011- 2012- 126/Jodh/2021 10098959/ 252474/- 229751/- 4,82,225/- 12 13 - 2012- 2013- 127/Jodh/2021 3273595/- 81840/- 70374/- 1,52,164/ 13 14 5. Against this assessee has filed appeal before the Honble CIT(A). The assessee has filed WS and details by stating that During the course

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

7) of the IT Act provides The audit under Companies Act, 2013, Tax\nas under:\nAudit u/s 44AB and audit under section\n801A was duly carried out and copies of the\naudit report was duly submitted to the AO\nduring the assessment. Claim u/s 35AD\nduly made in return, quantification also\nmade in Audit Report u/s 44AB. It is also

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

7) of the\nact, the provisions of section 801A had been imported and it mandates the\nrequirement of submission of the audit report as required under the Act. From\nthe details submitted by the assessee it is stated by AO that the bifurcation of\nassets of the specified business cannot be ascertained. The main contention of\nthe AO while disallowing

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

1). 28. In our considered opinion, an action for reassessment would have to be based on the formation of an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. That primordial condition would clearly not be satisfied on the mere allegation of a delayed digital filing of Form 10. 29. Quite apart from the above, we also bear in mind

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

reassessment proceedings u/s 148, but the same was allowed by the NFAC/CIT(A) without appreciating the facts. The Ld. CIT (DR) contended that the AO disallowed such claim of the assessee on the ground that the report which was required to be submitted online was submitted late and therefore the mandatory condition of the section was not satisfied

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

7 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 75,00,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia

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

7 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 75,00,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia

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

7 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 75,00,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia

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

7 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 75,00,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia

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

7 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 75,00,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia

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

7 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 75,00,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia