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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

section 263(2), the notice issued on 30-4- 2009 was barred by limitation. 6.4 In Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2021) 90 ITR TRIB (Trib) 554 (Mum), it was held that: 23 | P a g e "10. A perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under s. 147 of the Act, as reproduced

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.

68 and Section 56(2)(viib) were applicable only from A.Y. 2013-14. Such a view cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 5. The impugned order U/s 263 is illegal and most unjustified, as the same is not based on any valid material or legal evidence whatsoever on records, but the same

ASSTT. 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

2,86,16,394/39. The same is also verifiable from the schedule of additions in fixed assets. 8 ITA No. 541,544and 545/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2018-19) 7. The CBDT Circular dated 11/04/1955 clarify the issues further that it is the duty of the revenue to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the instance

SITA DEVI CHOUDHARY,AHORE JALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALORE

In the result, stands allowed

Bench: The Cit(A) Challenging The Additions Made By The Ao. The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld Both The Additions Made By Observing-

68. (5) That the assessee had made available all the relevant documents as required by the assessing authority while replying to the adjudication proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the same had been duly acknowledged by the assessing authority while passing order u/s 143(3) s under – (6) That it is further

ASSTT. 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

2,86,16,394/39. The same is also verifiable from the schedule of additions in fixed assets. Capital investment in fixed assets made during the year, for which deduction under 35AD was claimed. 7. The CBDT Circular dated 11/04/1955 clarify the issues further that it is the duty of the revenue to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly

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

2,86,16,394/39. The same is also verifiable from the schedule of additions in fixed assets. Capital investment in fixed assets made during the year, for which deduction under 35AD was claimed. 7. The CBDT Circular dated 11/04/1955 clarify the issues further that it is the duty of the revenue to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

7. It is seen that the AO has not specified any section under which this addition was made, however, considering the nature of this addition, it could be either u/s. 41(1) of the Act or u/s. 68 of the Act. From the facts and details as furnished by the appellant, it is seen that total sundry creditors consisted

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

2 relating to addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. CIT(A) Order : Para 7 Page 5 to 9 (Finding Para 7.1 Page 9) AO Order : Para 4 Page 3 to 5 a] The observation made by the ld AO while passing the assessment order reads as under: - (Page 4 & 5 of assessment order) "During

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

2 relating to addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. CIT(A) Order : Para 7 Page 5 to 9 (Finding Para 7.1 Page 9) AO Order : Para 4 Page 3 to 5 a] The observation made by the ld AO while passing the assessment order reads as under: - (Page 4 & 5 of assessment order) "During

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

2 to section 147 are applicable in this case, obtained necessary sanction separately to issue notice under section 148 from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the IT Act, 1961. Notice under section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 26.03.2021 and duly served upon the assessee through

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

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

7,70,040/- in original return of income filed under section 139 of the IT Act, 1961 on 25.09.2013. Notice under section 143(2) was issued by the AO on 11.07.2017 and asked the assessee to furnish submission. The assessee furnished the requisite information against the above said notice in writing and also contended that the notice issued

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

7,70,040/- in original return of income filed under section 139 of the IT Act, 1961 on 25.09.2013. Notice under section 143(2) was issued by the AO on 11.07.2017 and asked the assessee to furnish submission. The assessee furnished the requisite information against the above said notice in writing and also contended that the notice issued

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

7,70,040/- in original return of income filed under section 139 of the IT Act, 1961 on 25.09.2013. Notice under section 143(2) was issued by the AO on 11.07.2017 and asked the assessee to furnish submission. The assessee furnished the requisite information against the above said notice in writing and also contended that the notice issued

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

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)

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. AO for Rs. 78,60,000/-treating the amount received towards subscription of share capital as unexplained cash credit. The addition so sustained may kindly be deleted. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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)

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. AO for Rs. 78,60,000/-treating the amount received towards subscription of share capital as unexplained cash credit. The addition so sustained may kindly be deleted. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whoseprimary object is to provide financial I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 7