ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 @ 60% by the ld. AO. 3.3 Ld. AO also noted from the computation of income filed that the assessee has claimed Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 17,19,605/- on account of sale of immovable properties. Ld. AO considering the fact that the assessee engaged in the business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

100 beds and is the only project of the appellant company. The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

100 beds and is the only\nproject of the appellant company.\nThe deduction under sub-section (1) from\nprofits and gains derived from an\nundertaking shall not be admissible unless\nthe accounts of the undertaking for the\nprevious year relevant to the assessment\nyear for which the deduction is claimed\nhave been audited by an accountant, as\ndefined

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

100 beds and is the only\nproject of the appellant company.\nThe deduction under sub-section (1) from\nprofits and gains derived from an\nundertaking shall not be admissible unless\nthe accounts of the undertaking for the\nprevious year relevant to the assessment\nyear for which the deduction is claimed\nhave been audited by an accountant, as\ndefined

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

100 per share (Rs. 10/- + Rs.90/-) to the director and the son of director. The assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) and addition was confirmed for contravening section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11 UA of Income Tax Rule 1962 ( here in after Rule). The difference of amount of share premium with the NAV, calculated

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

100 per share (Rs. 10/- + Rs.90/-) to the director and the son of director. The assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) and addition was confirmed for contravening section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11 UA of Income Tax Rule 1962 ( here in after Rule). The difference of amount of share premium with the NAV, calculated

THAR HEAT TRANSFER EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthar Heat Transfer Equipments Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur. B-13 To 16, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aacct 7832 L Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari, Ca Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jodhpur Dated 20/03/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Invoking Section 263 & The Setting Aside Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. The Order Made U/S 143(3) Cannot Be Said To Erroneous Or Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Was Made After Duly Examining The Issue Relating To Capital Gains & The Said Order Cannot Be Said To Be Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Or Revenue. The Allocation Of Value Of Sale Of Land Was On The Basis Of Valuation Adopted By The Stamp Authorities & Was Also Verifiable. The Ld. Pr. Cit Had Erred In Observing That The Appellant Had Taken The Higher Value Of Agriculture Land. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter, Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

68,000/- Depreciation each year 2280X 600  Stone Patti 1 % 8,36,800/- Depreciation each year  Tinsheet 20718 fts. X .0929 28,87,053/- + 1924.70 X 1500  Boundary Wall 333 Running 99,900/- mts. X 300 3,79,100/- 48,12,643/-  Less Depreciation Total Fair Market Value 4,01,00,000/- 6. The assessee also submitted details of such

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. ANJANA CONSTRUCTION, CHITTORGARH

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

100-101 which is reproduced as below:- “Satisfaction Note for initiation of action u/s 193C of the I.T. Act In the case of M/s. Anjana Construction (AADFA1389B) 1. Name & address of the assesse in whose case action M/s Anjana Construction u/s 153C is proposed. 2. Name ad PAN of search assessee during whose Shri Udai Lalal Anjana proceedings satisfaction

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

100-101 which is reproduced as below:- “Satisfaction Note for initiation of action u/s 193C of the I.T. Act In the case of M/s. Anjana Construction (AADFA1389B) 1. Name & address of the assesse in whose case action M/s Anjana Construction u/s 153C is proposed. 2. Name ad PAN of search assessee during whose Shri Udai Lalal Anjana proceedings satisfaction

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

100-101 which is reproduced as below:- “Satisfaction Note for initiation of action u/s 193C of the I.T. Act In the case of M/s. Anjana Construction (AADFA1389B) 1. Name & address of the assesse in whose case action M/s Anjana Construction u/s 153C is proposed. 2. Name ad PAN of search assessee during whose Shri Udai Lalal Anjana proceedings satisfaction

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, invoking provisions of best judgement, an ex-parte order qua the assessee society where the Assessment order indicated the address as ADARSH PRINTER BHAWAN RAJMATA DHARAMSALA, SIROHI 307001, Rajasthan, India, which was seized to be the registered office after appointment of the Official Liquidator. And thus, the order was never communicated

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, invoking provisions of best judgement, an ex-parte order qua the assessee society where the Assessment order indicated the address as ADARSH PRINTER BHAWAN RAJMATA DHARAMSALA, SIROHI 307001, Rajasthan, India, which was seized to be the registered office after appointment of the Official Liquidator. And thus, the order was never communicated

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, invoking provisions of best judgement, an ex-parte order qua the assessee society where the Assessment order indicated the address as ADARSH PRINTER BHAWAN RAJMATA DHARAMSALA, SIROHI 307001, Rajasthan, India, which was seized to be the registered office after appointment of the Official Liquidator. And thus, the order was never communicated

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD. vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 144 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, invoking provisions of best judgement, an ex-parte order\nqua the assessee society where the Assessment order indicated the address as\nADARSH PRINTER BHAWAN RAJMATA DHARAMSALA, SIROHI 307001, Rajasthan,\nIndia, which was seized to be the registered office after appointment of the\nOfficial Liquidator. And thus, the order was never communicated

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, invoking provisions of best judgement, an ex-parte order qua the assessee society where the Assessment order indicated the address as ADARSH PRINTER BHAWAN RAJMATA DHARAMSALA, SIROHI 307001, Rajasthan, India, which was seized to be the registered office after appointment of the Official Liquidator. And thus, the order was never communicated

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 144 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, invoking provisions of best judgement, an ex-parte order\nqua the assessee society where the Assessment order indicated the address as\nADARSH PRINTER BHAWAN RAJMATA DHARAMSALA, SIROHI 307001, Rajasthan,\nIndia, which was seized to be the registered office after appointment of the\nOfficial Liquidator. And thus, the order was never communicated

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 251(1)(a) itself provides\n251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the 22[* * *] 30[Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the\nfollowing powers—\n(a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the\nassessment33 34[* * *];\nAnd in the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2016-17 the assessee has not filed the appeal

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 251(1)(a) itself provides\n251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the 22[* * *] 30[Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the\nfollowing powers—\n(a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the\nassessment33 34[* * *];\nAnd in the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2016-17 the assessee has not filed the appeal