PREETI SINGHVI L/H SHRI AJAY SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

deduct TDS. Hence, this expense is not allowable as per provision u/s 40(a)(ia). 6.4.5 I have examined the issue so raised. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings only after properly after properly appreciating and analyzing the evidences. The information on the foundation of which Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings under section 147

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

deduction of expenses that arise during the period in which there is no income generation. Therefore, the AO had rightly made addition of interest expenses claimed by the assessee. Thus, the ground no. 3 is dismissed.” 6. As the assessee has not received any relief from the order of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has preferred the present appeal

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

deduction of expenses that arise during the period in which there is no income generation. Therefore, the AO had rightly made addition of interest expenses claimed by the assessee. Thus, the ground no. 3 is dismissed.” 6. As the assessee has not received any relief from the order of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has preferred the present appeal

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

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

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

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

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

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

deduction claimed u/s 80G of the act by assessee was disallowed and Rs.500000/-as added back to total income of assessee. On the above facts, income of the assessee is calculated as under:- Returned Income 4,29,620/- Add: Addition on a/c of wrong claim of 80G 5,00,000/- Total Income 9,29,620/- After that Ld. AO initiated

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

deduction@ 30% which is bad in law. Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani vs. ITO 6. That the appellant craves its right to add, alter, amend, modify or substitute any of the grounds of appeal on or before the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a small retail trader engaged in business

M.P. POONIA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 is assessment for purpose of reopening of the assessments. In the case of the assessee no assessment was made before issue of notice u/s 148, therefore there cannot be any reassessment or reopening of the assessment. The case is squarely covered by the above judgment. Therefore, to complete assessment on the basis of illegal notice is illegal and void

CHANCHAL KUMARI JAIN ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.213/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Chanchal Kumari Jain Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 143-A/A, Shastri Nagar Ward-3, Bhilwara Vs. Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311 001. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adnpj-8347-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

147 on 30/10/2017. The reassessment proceedings were triggered pursuant to receipt of certain information that the assessee procured bogus short-term capital gain (STCG). Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 26/09/2016. 3.2 The assessee reflected STCG of Rs.1.90 Lacs which arose from sale of 25000 shares of an entity namely M/s Anukaran Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (ACEL). The same were

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

deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. 2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY 2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee was given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated 30.07.2015 and letter

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

deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. 2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY 2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee was given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated 30.07.2015 and letter

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

deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. 2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY 2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee was given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated 30.07.2015 and letter

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

deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. 2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY 2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee was given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated 30.07.2015 and letter

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

deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. 2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY 2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee was given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated 30.07.2015 and letter