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

42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before

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

42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before

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

42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before

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

42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before

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

42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before

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)

C. Cables Ltd.(2017) 6 Dawoodi Bohra Jamat, Udaipur. 98 CCH 0010 DelHC it has been held that Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT, who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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. On the similar principals, the order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton Corp and M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows, on the issue of penalty u/s 271(1

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

1. That the ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred

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

1. That the ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred

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

1. That the ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred

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

1. That the ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred

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

1. That the ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

42,193, particularly in the light of fact that the appellant holds good status in society and his children were studying in reputed schools. In the written submissions filed before me, the appellant made contradictory submissions, as on one side he is requesting for deletion of addition. made on account of low household withdrawal, on the other side

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

C.A. Revenue By Shri Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing 03/08/2023 Date of 12/10/2023 Pronouncement Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT O R D E R PER BENCH These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue which are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur [hereinafter referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

C.A. Revenue By Shri Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing 03/08/2023 Date of 12/10/2023 Pronouncement Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT O R D E R PER BENCH These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue which are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur [hereinafter referred

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

C.A. Revenue By Shri Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing 03/08/2023 Date of 12/10/2023 Pronouncement Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT O R D E R PER BENCH These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue which are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur [hereinafter referred

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

C.A. Revenue By Shri Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing 03/08/2023 Date of 12/10/2023 Pronouncement Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT O R D E R PER BENCH These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue which are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur [hereinafter referred

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

C.A. Revenue By Shri Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing 03/08/2023 Date of 12/10/2023 Pronouncement Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT O R D E R PER BENCH These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue which are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur [hereinafter referred