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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

192 (SC) where it is held that when two views are possible on an\nissue, the view in favour of the assessee has to be preferred. And also many High court\nalso held the same.\nAs in the latest decisions of Honble Delhi High court of Pr. CIT v/s N.S. Software (Firm)\n403 ITR 259 (2018) in which

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

192 (SC) where it is held that when two views are possible on an\nissue, the view in favour of the assessee has to be preferred. And also many High court\nalso held the same.\nAs in the latest decisions of Honble Delhi High court of Pr. CIT v/s N.S. Software (Firm)\n403 ITR 259 (2018) in which

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

192 (SC) where it is held that when two views are possible on an\nissue, the view in favour of the assessee has to be preferred. And also many High court\nalso held the same.\nAs in the latest decisions of Honble Delhi High court of Pr. CIT v/s N.S. Software (Firm)\n403 ITR 259 (2018) in which

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

192 (SC) that when two views are possible, one favouring\nassessee should have been followed.\n1.25 Thus, in view of the foregoing material facts it is proved that there is gross\nviolation of provision of law and principle of natural justice in issue of statutory\nnotice, service of notice and passing of assessment order in the name of appellant

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

192 (SC) that when two views are possible, one favouring\nassessee should have been followed.\n1.26 Thus, in view of the foregoing material facts it is proved that there is gross\nviolation of provision of law and principle of natural justice in issue of statutory\nnotice, service of notice and passing of assessment order in the name of appellant

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

192 (SC) that when two views are possible, one favouring\nassessee should have been followed.\n1.26\nThus, in view of the foregoing material facts it is proved that there is gross\nviolation of provision of law and principle of natural justice in issue of statutory\nnotice, service of notice and passing of assessment order in the name of appellant

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

192 (SC) that when two views are possible, one favouring\nassessee should have been followed.\n1.26 Thus, in view of the foregoing material facts it is proved that there is gross\nviolation of provision of law and principle of natural justice in issue of statutory\nnotice, service of notice and passing of assessment order in the name of appellant

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

192 (SC) that when two views are possible, one favouring\nassessee should have been followed.\n1.26 Thus, in view of the foregoing material facts it is proved that there is gross\nviolation of provision of law and principle of natural justice in issue of statutory\nnotice, service of notice and passing of assessment order in the name of appellant

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

192 ITD 0298 (Jaipur- Trib) Indian Geotechnical Services vs. ACIT (2021) 62 CCH 468 (Del- Trib) NCC Limited vs ACIT (2021) 63 CCH 60 (Hyd-Trib) Thus, the said amendment is prospective in nature and cannot be read for the subject AY. Amount is allowable as a deduction as it is paid within the ‘due date’ under

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

192 ITD 0298 (Jaipur- Trib) Indian Geotechnical Services vs. ACIT (2021) 62 CCH 468 (Del- Trib) NCC Limited vs ACIT (2021) 63 CCH 60 (Hyd-Trib) Thus, the said amendment is prospective in nature and cannot be read for the subject AY. Amount is allowable as a deduction as it is paid within the ‘due date’ under

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,920/- 2018-19 Rs. 1,29,46,152/- Rs. 4,61,80,190/- 2019-20 Rs. 12,04,359/- Rs. 42,96,065/- Total Investment (In Rs.) Rs. 2,51,44,716/- Rs. 8,96,93,660/- 3.1 For the year under consideration the ld. DVO estimated the value at Rs. 4,61,80,190/- and in the books