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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

153. However, they do not override the\nmandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\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 under s. 153A

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

153. However, they do not override the\nmandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\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 under s. 153A

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

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

153. However, they do not override the mandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”. Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice under s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such time limit would start from

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

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 under s. 153A

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

section 153 A of the\nAct date 06/08/2021 for AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 & U/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2019-\n20, date of order 30/09/2021.\n2.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed the\nreturn of income declaring total income of Rs. 79,79,410/- on 30/10/2019

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

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

153 A of the Act, herself claimed as owner of the HBS Account ignoring the duly verified notes appended to the said return of income. 16. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in applying the theory of Pith and Substance in relation to HBS Account. 3 Indu Bal Porwal vs. DCIT

M/S. RASIK PRIYA RESORTS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Jodh/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., V Of Income Tax, 11, Mangal Complex, S. Central Circle-2, Udaipur. Saifan Choraha, Bedla Road, Udaipur. Pan: Aafcr 5546 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Rakesh Lodha – Ca Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

68 of the Act.” 3.4 Thus, in this case, since the assessee has failed to prove creditworthiness of Mr.Mangilal Gurjar and Mr.Naresh Trivedi, inter-alia failed to prove genuineness of the transaction respectfully following the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) we uphold the addition of Rs.4 lakhs. Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the assessee is dismissed. 4. Ground No.1

M/S. RASIK PRIYA RESORTS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Jodh/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., V Of Income Tax, 11, Mangal Complex, S. Central Circle-2, Udaipur. Saifan Choraha, Bedla Road, Udaipur. Pan: Aafcr 5546 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Rakesh Lodha – Ca Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

68 of the Act.” 3.4 Thus, in this case, since the assessee has failed to prove creditworthiness of Mr.Mangilal Gurjar and Mr.Naresh Trivedi, inter-alia failed to prove genuineness of the transaction respectfully following the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) we uphold the addition of Rs.4 lakhs. Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the assessee is dismissed. 4. Ground No.1

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

153 & 153A of the Act, the assessment for A.Ys 2011-12 to 2016-17, the satisfaction note is required to be recorded separately whereas a consolidated satisfaction recorded for different assessment years is contrary to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The alleged note is annexed in APB page 100-101 which is reproduced as below:- “Satisfaction Note

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

153 & 153A of the Act, the assessment for A.Ys 2011-12 to 2016-17, the satisfaction note is required to be recorded separately whereas a consolidated satisfaction recorded for different assessment years is contrary to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The alleged note is annexed in APB page 100-101 which is reproduced as below:- “Satisfaction Note

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

153 & 153A of the Act, the assessment for A.Ys 2011-12 to 2016-17, the satisfaction note is required to be recorded separately whereas a consolidated satisfaction recorded for different assessment years is contrary to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The alleged note is annexed in APB page 100-101 which is reproduced as below:- “Satisfaction Note

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

153 (Mad)\n(v) Finally, the word \"may\" used in Section 133A (3)(iii) of the Act, viz.,\n\"record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to,\nany proceeding under this Act, as already extracted above, makes it clear that\nthe materials collected and the statement recorded during the survey\nunder Section

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

153 powers are given to\nthe Department, the Court has to look into whether the law declared by the Supreme\nCourt is given away or protected. In the present case, as the Assessing Officer has clearly\nignored the law declared by the Supreme Court, in that view of the matter, the issues\nwhich are raised in the matter, the Tribunal

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)

68 on account of increase in share capital which was upheld by CIT(A) was not justified 2.2In the case of PCIT v/s MeetaGutgutia Prop. Ferns Patel &Ors 395 ITR 526(Del) held Search and Seizure—New scheme of assessment in search cases—Validity of invocation of Section 153A—On basis of documents recovered during search and seizure

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

153 Agri land at Gangangar (0.556 Hq) 1. 1,43,320 Agri land at Ganganagar (1.202 Hq) 2. 8,99,971 Agri land at Khara Bypass (.83 Hq) 3. 57,592 Land at Ginnani (998.75 Sq. Ft) 4. 2,10,723 Land at JNV (4-0-35 2100 Sq. Ft) 5. 43,430 Land at Khara

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.

153 which starts with non-obstante clause i.e.:- " Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, 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