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

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

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

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

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

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

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

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016. Reply filed by the AR of the assessee has been considered during the course of assessment proceedings but not found acceptable in toto due to the reason that the following creditors were not having sufficient cash balance with them

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016. Reply filed by the AR of the assessee has been considered during the course of assessment proceedings but not found acceptable in toto due to the reason that the following creditors were not having sufficient cash balance with them

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

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

148 was issued on 25.03.2015 and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 07.05.2015. After hearing the assessee, the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 9,72,660/- by making additions/disallowances of Rs. 3,68,000/-. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of 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)

148. After reassessment, the AO made additions amounting to Rs. 78,60,000/- under section 68 on account of share

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)

148. After reassessment, the AO made additions amounting to Rs. 78,60,000/- under section 68 on account of share

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the I.T. Act (addition by ITO was made by invoking of the same) is applicable on the present case because there were not a single entry of cash credit during the year. The transactions (labour payment) were in the nature of trade creditors? 3. Whether notice u/s 148

TEJPRAKASH BAHNWAR LAL MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(4) UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

148. The notice was issued u/s 142(1) and the addition was confirmed the amount of Rs.4,15,649/- u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged both the legal and factual grounds before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

PREETI NAVEEN MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4) UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

148. The notice was issued u/s 142(1) and the addition was confirmed the amount of Rs.4,15,649/- u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged both the legal and factual grounds before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

PREETI NAVEEN MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4) UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

148. The notice was issued u/s 142(1) and the addition was confirmed the amount of Rs.4,15,649/- u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged both the legal and factual grounds before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

TEJPRAKASH BHANWAR LAL MEHTA,U vs. ITO WARD 1(4), UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

148. The notice was issued u/s 142(1) and the addition was confirmed the amount of Rs.4,15,649/- u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged both the legal and factual grounds before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

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 68 were made applicable from A.Y. 2013-14 in relation to share capital and premium and therefore, no addition was made. This decision of the AO was examining the complete details and this was precisely the reason for which the action U/s 148

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

148 of I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 29.12.2015 by the ITO, Ward-1(5), Jodhpur, which was duly served upon the assessee in time. The assessee is a proprietor of the firm namely M/s Bhaval Exports. The firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of wooden handicraft items. 3.1 Survey u/s 133A

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

148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the\nmandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.10\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