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

234A, B,C and D. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full . “Revised Ground No.3: Rs.1,14,89,554/-:-The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming

LIFE CARE HOSPITAL,SIROHI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3. To attract deeming provision of sections 69 and 69A of the Act the foremost requirements that is to be followed is that the income should be from any other source rather than from its regular source of earning. 4. What is relevant before invoking the deeming provisions is not just the factum of survey action but besides that

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 115BBE of the Act on the professional income of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- surrendered by the appellant assessee during the course of survey u/s 133A and which was included by him in his return income. The ld. AO has also erred in invoking provisions of sec. 115BBE on addition of Rs.1,00,000/- made

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

234A, B,C and D. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the\nprovision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full .\n“Revised Ground No.3: Rs.1,14,89,554/-:-The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as\nwell as on the facts of the case

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

234A ,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full. I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 14/Jodh/2022 & I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 16/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2012-13 5. Ground5. The appellant prays your honors indulgence

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

234A ,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full. I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 14/Jodh/2022 & I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 16/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2012-13 5. Ground5. The appellant prays your honors indulgence

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

234A ,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full. I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 14/Jodh/2022 & I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 16/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2012-13 5. Ground5. The appellant prays your honors indulgence

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

234A ,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full. I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 14/Jodh/2022 & I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 16/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2012-13 5. Ground5. The appellant prays your honors indulgence

CHANDAN SINGH,POKRAN vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

234A, 234B and 2340 The assessee did not furnish any contentions in respect of this ground of appeal during the appellate proceedings. The levy of interest under these sections is mandatory on satisfaction of the conditions specified in the respective sections. The assessee did not point out specific mistakes that occurred in computation of interest under these sections

VINAY MITTAL,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevinay Mittal Income Tax Officer, 3, J Block, Sriganganagar (Raj.) Ward No. -1, Ward No. 1 Keshrisinghpur Sriganganagar Sriganganagar Pan No. Avopm6894P Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue By Shri P.M. Mirdha, Addl. Cit- Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The Nfac/ Cit (A)] Dated 22.03.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

68 of Rs. 96,13,761/- on account of increase in unsecured loans in comparison to previous year. The Assessee could not submit his submission. All the unsecured loans taken during the year is genuine and fair so the addition may kindly be quashed. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

234A, 2348, 234C and 234D." 26 Varaha Infra Ltd. 8.1 The charge of interest under the above sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating

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)

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1.1 The impugned order u/s 153A rws 143(3) of the I.T. Act. 1961 dated 31.05.2021 as well as the action taken u/s 153A and notices u/s 143(2) or other notices are illegal

DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

234A,B,C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. That the appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the In this case, Shri Shyam Sunder Soni, Karta of afore-said HUF was arriving from Mumbai

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the In this case, Shri Shyam Sunder Soni, Karta of afore-said HUF was arriving from Mumbai

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the In this case, Shri Shyam Sunder Soni, Karta of afore-said HUF was arriving from Mumbai

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the In this case, Shri Shyam Sunder Soni, Karta of afore-said HUF was arriving from Mumbai

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the In this case, Shri Shyam Sunder Soni, Karta of afore-said HUF was arriving from Mumbai