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

15 …………..But Section 143(2) itself becomes necessary only where it becomes necessary to check the return, so that where block return conforms to the undisclosed income inferred by the authorities, there is no reason, why the Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani vs. ITO authorities should issue notice under Section 143(2). However, if an assessment is to be completed under Section

HEERA LAL KASARA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

15% whereas the assessee has shown lesser. The reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the IT Act were initiated after recording reasons duly approved by the Pr. CIT, Range-1, Udaipur vide his letter no. 3822 dated 22.03.2016 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 4 Heera Lal Kasara, Udaipur. 22.03.2016 and duly served upon

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

15 raising therein following grounds of appeal. SHRI LALIT JOHRI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR ‘’1. That the appellate order dated 26-12-2018 passed by the ld. CIT(A), confirming order dated 31-10-2017 passed u/s 154 by the ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur is bade in law and on facts. 2. That

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

15—12—2009 computing income at Rs. 10,05,32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on dated 22-11-2011 determining total income Rs. 10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147

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

15—12—2009 computing income at Rs. 10,05,32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on dated 22-11-2011 determining total income Rs. 10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147

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

15—12—2009 computing income at Rs. 10,05,32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on dated 22-11-2011 determining total income Rs. 10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147

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

15—12—2009 computing income at Rs. 10,05,32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on dated 22-11-2011 determining total income Rs. 10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147

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

15—12—2009 computing income at Rs. 10,05,32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on dated 22-11-2011 determining total income Rs. 10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147

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

15—12—2009 computing income at Rs. 10,05,32,760/—. Another assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on dated 22-11-2011 determining total income Rs. 10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 148/147 were initiated by the Assessing Officer, on non-existing facts, because ultimately the assessee has been able to explain the income, which was believed to have been escaped assessment, was explainable. It is further held that the income, with respect to which he had entertained reason to believe to have escaped assessment, was found to have been explained

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings an invalid........” iv] On the identical facts the Hon’ble ITAT Agar Bench in the case of Shri. Raj Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) ITA No. 408/Agra/2018 Date of Order : 22/03/2019 "29. The text of the reasons recorded do proves that virtually there has been no application of mind by the learned Assessing officer so as to form

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings an invalid........” iv] On the identical facts the Hon’ble ITAT Agar Bench in the case of Shri. Raj Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) ITA No. 408/Agra/2018 Date of Order : 22/03/2019 "29. The text of the reasons recorded do proves that virtually there has been no application of mind by the learned Assessing officer so as to form

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

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

u/s 147 may kindly be declared as erroneous and void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. AO for Rs. 78,60,000/-treating the amount received towards subscription of share capital as unexplained cash credit. The addition so sustained

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

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

u/s 147 may kindly be declared as erroneous and void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. AO for Rs. 78,60,000/-treating the amount received towards subscription of share capital as unexplained cash credit. The addition so sustained

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2 Copy of Return for A.Y 2015-16 17 3 Copy of audited financial statement along with return 18-46 and computation of income for A.Y 2014-15 4 Copy of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by the ITO, 47 Ward-1(5), Jodhpur 5 Copy of reasons recorded while issuing notice u/s

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.

147 based on information that 51392 shares were issued at the premium of Rs. 120 each by over value assessed particularly in violation of Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules. The AO alleged that while computing the fair market value (FMV) of shares the appellant took the market value of land at Rs. 2,45,50,000/- under the book

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

15 to 20 (PB86-92) also (PB22-34) which may kindly be considered here also before your honor. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has ignored the above submissions and wrongly enhanced our income, by observing are as under- 4.1The affidavits of relatives are not verifiable evidences as relatives are influenced by the assessee and consider the request made