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

250\nof the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the\nfollowing grounds of appeal :-\nITA No. 304/Jodh/2025\nMangilal Datla, Banswara.\n“1.1 The impugned order u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2022 as well as the\naction taken and notices u/s 147/148 or other notices are illegal

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 148, and the legal representatives were not properly brought on record, the notice was invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "154", "250", "148", "133A", "131", "147

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

250 ignoring\nvarious submission made in application filed under section 154 against the impugned\norder dated 24.12.2018.\n6. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in conforming interest of Rs. 450921/- u/s 234A and\nRs. 482019 u/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n7. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternate\ngrounds

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 148, and the notice was not served on the legal representatives of the deceased partners, the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the notice and the subsequent proceedings.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "148", "147", "189(3)", "154", "250

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

sections": [ "148", "147", "189(3)", "154", "250", "133A", "131", "292B", "234A", "234C" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing a notice u/s

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.”

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 2 Heera Lal Kasara, Udaipur. “1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the action of ld. AO in initiating the proceedings u/s 148, which is bad in law and bad on facts. The original assessment was made

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 proceeding U/s 147 of the Act without obtaining proper satisfaction and sanction from the superior authority U/s 151 of the Act. I have carefully considered the facts and submissions of the Learned AR and the decisions relied on by him. This is 3 SMT SHAHNAJ VS ITO, WARD-2, CHURU the case where originally the appellant had not filed

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

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961,\nfor the assessment year 2014-15.\n2.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) erred in\nconfirming the AO's order dated 28.12.2017 passed for the AY 2014-15 u/s\n153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act without

MITHLESH SUHALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08, date of order 11/02/2023. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Udaipur (in short, ‘the Ld.AO’) passed u/s 143(3) / 254 / 147 of the Act, date of order 30/03/2015. 2 Shri Mithleh Suhalka

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee\nhas raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n“1.The CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without\nconsidering the grounds of the assessee regarding reopening of assessment.\n2. The CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without\ndiscussing and considering

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

147, 148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the\nmandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed

JAISALMER CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,JAISALMER vs. ITO WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO, Ward-1, Barmer. 2 The Jaisalmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the ld. CIT(A) NFAC factually and legally erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1690138/- under S. 271(1)(c) imposed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

250, highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

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

250 of the Income 1 Indu Bal Porwal vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Udaipur Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] is perverse, arbitrary, and bad in law, non-speaking and without jurisdiction. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A)’s Order is without application of mind, perverse and untenable in law which requires