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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 2 Life Care Hospital, Abu Road, Sirohi. 1. Your appellant is a partnership firm and having multispecialty hospital at Tatoli Road, Aburoad, Dist. Sirohi (Rajasthan). 2. Your appellant filed their Return of Income on 25.10.2017 declaring total income

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the act and and added to the income of the assessee. In addition to the cash-credits, the AO has further made addition of Rs. 8,56,000/- u/s 69A of the by treating the deposit in the name of Sh. Mohan Ram Choudhary and Smt.Tulchi Devi

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for brevity, the "Act"] for the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16, date of orders 20/12/2023 and 17/07/2023, respectively. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Jodhpur [for brevity, the "Ld. AO"] passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. PLAZA TEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

68 is hereby deleted.” 5. Aggrieved by the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, Ld. Sr. DR asserted that Ld. CIT(A) has granted the relief merely on the basis of documents furnished by the assessee. No exercise of any enquiry or verification has been undertaken either

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

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

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The grounds and revised grounds raised in these appeals are being reproduced as under :- Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In ITA No. 706/Jodh/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 “Ground No.1: The impugned order u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the I.T. Act,1961 dated

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

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The grounds and revised grounds raised in these appeals are being reproduced as under :- 2 ITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In ITA No. 706/Jodh/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 “Ground No.1: The impugned order u/s 153A r.w.s

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

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The grounds and revised grounds raised in these appeals are being reproduced as under :-2 ITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In ITA No. 706/Jodh/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 “Ground No.1: The impugned order u/s 153A r.w.s

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

250 of the I.T.\nAct, 1961, for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The\ngrounds and revised grounds raised in these appeals are being reproduced as under\n:-\n2\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn ITA No. 706/Jodh/2024 A.Y. 2013-14\n“Ground No.1: The impugned order u/s 153A r.w.s

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

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act'), for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2018-19, date of order 04/03/2025 & for AY 2019-20, date of order 05/03/2025. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/ DC Cen CIR-1, JDH, (in short, ‘Ld.AO') passed under section

RITU ROAD LINES,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-02, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.34/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ritu Road Lines, The Dcit, Plot No.12-14, Nakoda V Central Circle-2, Jodhpur. Industrial Area, Basni, S Jodhpur – 342001. Pan: Aaafr9440D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/11/2023

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2018-19 dated 29.12.2022 emanating from assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.12.2019. The grounds of appeal are as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed by Id. AO u/sl43(3) without appreciating the facts of the case

SANTOSH SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

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

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Moved A Condonation Petition Explaining That The Delay Was Caused Due To Non-Receipt Of Communication From The Earlier Representative, Who Neither Apprised The Assessee Of The Appellate Outcome Nor Advised Timely Remedial Action. It Has Been Further Submitted That Upon Obtaining Knowledge Of The Order, The Assessee Promptly Engaged New Counsel & Has Been Diligently Pursuing The Matter. A Prayer Was Made To Condone The Delay In The Interest Of Justice.

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2012–13, whereby various additions made under section 68 of the Act were sustained. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 217 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining that the delay

CREATIVE PROPMART PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submissions by appearing in person or through authorised representative. Despite fixing the case for seventeen hearings, no one had put in appearance

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:-

250 of IT Act were issued to the appellant through ITBA(A), which amounts to service of notice as provided under Section 280 of the Act. However, there has been no 4 response of the appellant. Accordingly, he held that in view of the aforesaid non-compliance on the part of the appellant, instant appeal is adjudicated

DR. MANISH CHHAPARWAL ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

250 of the IT Act, 1961 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur is bad in law, illegal and void. 2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur has erred in affirming the order of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Udaipur in making addition of Rs.19,50,000/- on account

DCIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN GOYAL, FARIDABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotedcit Vs. Shri Brij Bhushan Circle, Pali., Goyal, Jodhpur. House No. 331, Sector Rajasthan. 16A, Faridabad, Haryana.-121002 Pan/Gir No. : Aawpg8405D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is justified in allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 1,68,71,111/- u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act ignoring the report of the Tehsildar that Khasa

AMRINDER SINGH JOSAN,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 492/Jodh/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. 2011-12. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward -3, Sriganga Nagar,[in brevity ‘the AO’] order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following ground: I.T.A.No. 492/Jodh/2023 2 &S.A.No.10/Jodh/2023 “1. 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

RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

68,157/- at Sr. No. 2 and indirect expenses at Sr. No. 3 of Rs. 7,50,000/- out of interest expenses as per table in Pg. No. 5 & 6 of the asst. order and was disputed in appeal before him. b. The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have maintained the said disallowance of Rs.89