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

II, Udaipur report dated 12.02.2018, earlier as on\ndate of survey one of the partner of firm Mr. Shyam Sundar Jain was alive and at\nlater date as on 12.02.2018 and on issueof foundational notice u/s 148 dated\n08.03.2018 he was died. So, as on issuance of date of statutory notice u/s 148\nnone of the partner was alive

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

3)147 of the Act dated 28-12-2017 was fixed and notice u/s. 250 of the Act was received by the appellant. In response, the appellant has filed her reply along with certificate of Municipal Board, Sardarshahar dated 28-02-2019 which is latest one (may be treated as additional evidence). In the said letter dated

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

II, Udaipur report dated 12.02.2018, earlier as on\ndate of survey one of the partner of firm Mr. Shyam Sundar Jain was alive and at\nlater date as on 12.02.2018 and on issueof foundational notice u/s 148 dated\n08.03.2018 he was died. So, as on issuance of date of statutory notice u/s 148\nnone of the partner was alive

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

II, Udaipur report dated 12.02.2018, earlier as on\ndate of survey one of the partner of firm Mr. Shyam Sundar Jain was alive and at\nlater date as on 12.02.2018 and on issueof foundational notice u/s 148 dated\n08.03.2018 he was died. So, as on issuance of date of statutory notice u/s 148\nnone of the partner was alive

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

II, Udaipur report dated 12.02.2018, earlier as on\ndate of survey one of the partner of firm Mr. Shyam Sundar Jain was alive and at\nlater date as on 12.02.2018 and on issueof foundational notice u/s 148 dated\n08.03.2018 he was died. So, as on issuance of date of statutory notice u/s 148\nnone of the partner was alive

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.”

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. The objections of the assessee were duly disposed off by the AO vide his letter dated 15.12.2016.Thereafter, the AO issued show cause notice asking the assessee to show cause as to why the undisclosed GP of Rs. 47,79,046/- should not be treated as income from undisclosed sources vide letter

PREETI SINGHVI L/H SHRI AJAY SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

ii) 28.03.2012 38,800 (18,000+20,000) Total 72,890 6.4.3 It is noticed from the reassessment order, the assessee has made cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- as per above table to a person in any single day which is in contravention of sec. 40A(3). Therefore, assessee claimed and was allowed payment of Rs.72,890/- of Rs.72

PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

II Phase,\nPali - Marwar - 306401.\nPAN No. AEEPG3811P\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\nDate of Hearing\nDate of Pronouncement\nVs. ITO,\nPali-Marwar.\nShri Amit Kothari, C.A.\nShri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT- DR\n07.05.2025.\n28.05.2025.\nORDER\nDR. MITHA LAL MEENA, Α.Μ.:\nThis appeal by assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Pr.\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

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

6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Whereas the grounds of the appeal taken by the revenue in appeal No. 167/Jodh/2022 reads as follows: “1. The learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in granting relief to the assessee. 2. Whether

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

6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Whereas the grounds of the appeal taken by the revenue in appeal No. 167/Jodh/2022 reads as follows: “1. The learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in granting relief to the assessee. 2. Whether

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Whereas the grounds of the appeal taken by the revenue in appeal No. 167/Jodh/2022 reads as follows: “1. The learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in granting relief to the assessee. 2. Whether

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Whereas the grounds of the appeal taken by the revenue in appeal No. 167/Jodh/2022 reads as follows: “1. The learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in granting relief to the assessee. 2. Whether