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

6) of section\n159.\nAs per provisions of section 189(3) all the legal heirs of the deceased partner(s) are jointly and\nseverally liable for any tax, penalty or other sum payable under Income tax Act, 1961 but for\naffixing such liability all the legal heir must be served with notice(s) and all the them must be\nmade

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

6) of section\n159.\nAs per provisions of section 189(3) all the legal heirs of the deceased partner(s) are jointly and\nseverally liable for any tax, penalty or other sum payable under Income tax Act, 1961 but for\naffixing such liability all the legal heir must be served with notice(s) and all the them must be\nmade

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

6) of section\n159.\nAs per provisions of section 189(3) all the legal heirs of the deceased partner(s) are jointly and\nseverally liable for any tax, penalty or other sum payable under Income tax Act, 1961 but for\naffixing such liability all the legal heir must be served with notice(s) and all the them must be\nmade

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

6) of section\n159.\nAs per provisions of section 189(3) all the legal heirs of the deceased partner(s) are jointly and\nseverally liable for any tax, penalty or other sum payable under Income tax Act, 1961 but for\naffixing such liability all the legal heir must be served with notice(s) and all the them must be\nmade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reassessment proceedings, is patently incorrect and substantially higher. Thus the penalty amount was not worked out as per law. The appellant condemned unheard on this issue. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional legal