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)

Exemption Uaipur. Uaipur. PAN/GIR No.: AAATD2089C Appellant Respondent Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Appellant by Sh. Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR) Respondent by Date of Hearing 07/05/2025 29/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the impugned order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

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

exempted income. However no disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working

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

exempted income. However no disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working

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

exempted income. However no disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working

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

exempted income. However no disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working

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

exempted income. However no disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working

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

exempted income. However no disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

exempt u/s 10(23)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of the stock\nand gradually rise its price many times. This is done through low volume\ntransaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price.\nWhen the price reaches the desired level, the beneficiary, who bought

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

exempted u/s 10(38) as undisclosed\nincome.\n3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, both the AO and ld. CIT (A)\nerred in rejecting the documentary evidences found and seized during the\ncourse of search from which it was clearly manifest that the assessee certainly\npurchased and sale equity shares of scripts Sun Asian. No incriminating\ndocuments

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

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In support, he placed reliance on Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India", [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) where it was observed that

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

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In support, he placed reliance on Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India", [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) where it was observed that

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

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In support, he placed reliance on Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India", [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) where it was observed that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

exemption from tax that was available in respect of winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races, etc. was withdrawn. Similarly the observation by the Chairman that if it was alleged that these tickets were obtained through fraudulent means, it was upon the alleger to prove that it was so ignored the reality. The transaction about purchase of winning ticket took place