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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reopening, however while passing the assessment order the ld AO made addition in respect unexplained cash credits. The ld AO had changed the head of income i.e. foundation of belief was undisclosed source of investment (relevant provision of section 69A of the Act) and finally made the addition in the order in respect of unexplained cash credits u/s 68

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

reopening was not sustainable-Assessee's appeal\nallowed.\nTARA ALLOYS LTD. vs. ITO (2018) 63 ITR (Trib) 0484 (Delhi)Reassessment—Income\nescaping assessment—Validity thereof-Case of assessee was selected for scrutiny as per\nprovisions of section 147 and 151 and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued to assessee—\nProceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated after recording reasons on basis

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

sections": ["68", "69C", "147", "148", "151", "115BBE", "142(1)", "10(38)", "10(23)", "282A"], "issues": "Whether the addition of Rs. 7,45,080/- as unexplained cash credit and Rs. 22,352/- as commission expenses was justified, and whether the reopening of assessment

PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainsh. Prakash Chandra Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer 67-68, Hiran Magri, Sector Ward 1(1), Udaipur No. 08, Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavpj 3696 E

section 68 and the revenue believe that shareholders are bogus, then the Assessing Officer is free to reopen the assessment

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)

reopening of the assessment and the additions made under section 68 and section 69C. The assessee’s principal argument is that

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)

reopening of the assessment and the additions made under section 68 and section 69C. The assessee’s principal argument is that

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

reopen the concluded assessment, which is not permissible under the law. (iii) CIT V/S KABUL CHAWALA(2016) 380 ITR 573Held – Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed. Assessment u/s 153A can be carried out only on the basis of 4 Tarun Murdia , Udaipur seized material. Where

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68-69 of has been an impediment to the allowance of the PB wrongly deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither distinguished expressly prohibited." by Ld. CIT(A) 2. Smt. Hansabaisanghvi v/s ITO ; (2004) 89 ITD (Hyd) 239 Para 4.2.3 at he assesee utilized the sale proceeds on of Para 8,9, & No adverse pg 12 of the the sale

BANSI LAL KUMHAR,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

reopened the case of the\nassessee of these years as they having sufficient time at the time of assessments.\nHence it is not the case of the revenue that the assessee has shown such higher\nagriculture income first time to cover the alleged cash deposits. Hence the\napproach of the Id. AO was contradictory. In brief, he submitted that

SHRI JITENDRA OJHA ,SIROHI vs. ITO,, SIROHI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Accountant Mrmber Shri Jiterndra Ojha Vs The Ito, S/O Sh. Mangi Lal Ojha , Sirohi. Chhoti Brahmpuri, Sirohi.

section, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that " ............... Since the ld. AO had not proceeded as per the mandatory provision of law, hence the ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the impugned asst. order. The same may kindly be cancelled and quashed. Such action and decision ought to have been sue-moto taken

RANJEET SHARMA,RAWATSAR vs. ITO, WARD NOHAR,, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5) The reason for issuance of notice u/s 148 was the cash deposit in assessee's bank account during the year under consideration. By submitting the books of accounts along with the bank statement during the assessment proceedings each and every entry of cash deposit in bank account was fully explained

M/S. PRATIK METALS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Prateek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income E-74, Marudhar Ind. Area, Tax-1, Basni-Ii, Jodhpur. Jodhpur.

Section 56 of the Act were applicable only from assessment year 2013-14 and were not applicable in the year under consideration. Even on merits of the case it was submitted that the assessee had submitted that voluminous details with regard to the issue of share capital. The assessee company received a total

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such

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

68,000/-. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings on the issue:- “Paragraph 15 …………..But Section 143(2) itself becomes necessary only where it becomes necessary

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

assessment order\nthrough which assessee explained the things and confusion in the mind of the AO.\nBut AO did not find satisfy with the reply of the assessee. He was of the view that\nthe Unbilled sales is unaccounted sales of the assessee which is supported by\nseized material as against the contention that it has recognized the revenue

AMRINDER SINGH JOSAN,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 492/Jodh/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 48 of IT Act which is mandatory and still available on the statue therefore the order passed by the assessing officer is not sustainable.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148. The addition was made related to deposit of cash in bank account amount of Rs.5 lac u/s 68

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

assessment order and the submission of the appellant. IN ground No. 2 supra, I have already held that the transaction with M/s Swift Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. are genuine. The receipt of ₹ 75 Lakhs is duly supported by the evidences and is against the purchase of Gwar made on its behalf on which Adat, rent, interest, brokerage, etc. is charged

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

68,093 6 622/Jodh/2024 & Others Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2017-18 2016-17 11,58,22,004 9,00,99,045 2,57,22,959 2017-18 8,91,78,138 8,64,93,022 26,85,116 The ld. AO has observed during the assessment proceedings that shut down wages has been paid in cash. The statements