OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 CCH 0553 Jaipur Trib (2023) 225 TTJ 0122 (Jp)\n3. Correct Facts and material not considered as silver belonged to all members of HUF: It\nis submitted that we had filed the detailed written submissions to CIT(A) in this regard vide page\n15 to 20 (PB86-92) also (PB22-34) which may kindly be considered here also before

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 CCH 0553 Jaipur Trib (2023) 225 TTJ 0122 (Jp)\n3. Correct Facts and material not considered as silver belonged to all members of HUF: It\nis submitted that we had filed the detailed written submissions to CIT(A) in this regard vide page\n15 to 20 (PB86-92) also (PB22-34) which may kindly be considered here also before

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

1. The Ld. PCIT was wrong in law as well as in facts in setting aside the order of the assessing officer without considering facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The ld. PCIT has not been able to establish the pre-requisite conditions for invoking the revisional provision.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

DINESH BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO,W-1, BARMER, BARMER, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act on 20.04.2021 determining the assessee's total income at Rs. 1,25,68,514/- by making an addition on account of disallowance of agriculture income of Rs.58,79,649/-. 4.1 The assessment order for the year under consideration was picked up for proceedings u/s. 263

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 and acquired the jurisdiction is not only illegal but also against the circular issued by the CBDT and in support, reliance was placed on decisions of Jaipur Bench in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhankhar (HUF) vs ACIT reported in (2021) 35 NYPTTJ 458 (Jp) and Pune Bench in the case of M/s Storewell Construction & Engineers

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

1,74,46,411 Plot at Panchsati Circle(Plot No. 53) 14. 3,34,425 Tubewell at Khara bypass land 15. Total 2,47,25,282  According to the ld. PCIT, while completing the assessment, the source of acquisition of the mentioned immovable assets has not been examined by the AO. However, the ld. AR submitted that during the course

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.

263 by the CIT. 6. It was also contended that in the various judicial decisions and it is held that when the identity of the share holder is established no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. The amendments made in the law in Section 68 of the Act as well as in Section

HITKARI AND SWARAJ ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BARMER vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

68 case laws quoted by the ld. Pr. CIT 69. It is abundantly clear from the above judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court that if the Assessing Officer fails to make a disallowance as per the provisions of Section 14A of the Act, the said assessment order will be an erroneous one and prejudicial to the interest

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

1. Correct Facts and position: At the very outset we have to submit correct facts and\nposition in the present case which have also been furnished before the ld. AO however\nthe ld. AO did not consider the same in their true perspective and sense but ignored and\nproceeded his own guess work presumption and suspicion.\n1.1In this respect

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

section 145 are not found to\nbe relevant in the facts of this case. The AO has not disturbed the book results as the cash\ntransactions are not part of regular books of accounts.\nThe ld CIT(A) has also tried to distinguish the decisions relied upon. Thus on the\nbasis of above observations the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

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

1,26,65,229/-(8194403+4470826)\ninstead of Rs.81,94,403/- declared by the assessee. Accordingly he has made\naddition of Rs.44,70,826/- in the A.Y. 2013-14. Same type of additions have also\nbeen made in the A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17 asper the above chart.\n6.2. Further

VISHNU GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT, CENTRAL, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section as 143(3) r.w.s 153B(1)(a) of the Act). The Ld PCIT, upon examination of assessment records both the years, took the view that the assessing officer has not conducted proper enquiries/verification while passing the assessment orders. Accordingly, he initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. 3. We shall first take up the revision order passed

VISHNU GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT, CENTRAL, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section as 143(3) r.w.s 153B(1)(a) of the Act). The Ld PCIT, upon examination of assessment records both the years, took the view that the assessing officer has not conducted proper enquiries/verification while passing the assessment orders. Accordingly, he initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. 3. We shall first take up the revision order passed

THAR HEAT TRANSFER EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthar Heat Transfer Equipments Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur. B-13 To 16, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aacct 7832 L Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari, Ca Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jodhpur Dated 20/03/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Invoking Section 263 & The Setting Aside Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. The Order Made U/S 143(3) Cannot Be Said To Erroneous Or Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Was Made After Duly Examining The Issue Relating To Capital Gains & The Said Order Cannot Be Said To Be Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Or Revenue. The Allocation Of Value Of Sale Of Land Was On The Basis Of Valuation Adopted By The Stamp Authorities & Was Also Verifiable. The Ld. Pr. Cit Had Erred In Observing That The Appellant Had Taken The Higher Value Of Agriculture Land. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter, Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

68,000/- Depreciation each year 2280X 600  Stone Patti 1 % 8,36,800/- Depreciation each year  Tinsheet 20718 fts. X .0929 28,87,053/- + 1924.70 X 1500  Boundary Wall 333 Running 99,900/- mts. X 300 3,79,100/- 48,12,643/-  Less Depreciation Total Fair Market Value 4,01,00,000/- 6. The assessee also submitted details of such

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

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

263 I.T.R. 101];\n(iii) The expression \"such other materials or information as are available with\nthe Assessing Officer\" contained in Section 158BB of the Income-tax Act,\n1961, would include the materials gathered during the survey operation\nunder Section 133A, vide Commissioner of Income-tax v.\nG.K.Senniappan [(2006) 284 I.T.R. 220];\n(iv) The material or information

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR vs. BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE , PALI

Accordingly, it is held that the AO rightly added Rs.19,06,200/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act,1961. The appellant fails on this ground. The ground raised by the appellant regarding this issue is, hereby, ...

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-Central Circle-2 Bhanwar Singh Rathore बनाम/ Room No.68, Income Tax Office Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Paota, C-Road Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. Rajasthan-306 401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.02/Jodh/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Bhanwar Singh Rathore Acit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Room No.68, Income Tax Office Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Paota, C-Road Vs. Rajasthan-306 401 Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

263/- which was not found to be agricultural income on inquiry, as claimed by the assessee . The Assessee, upon receipt of notice, has filed cross-objections on following grounds: - 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs.19,06,200/- in respect of cash deposits in bank

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

263 ITR 706 and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. UOI 341 ITR 1 may be referred which have distinguished the decision of McDowells & Co. vs. CTO 154 ITR 148. 10. We also observe that the determination of income of Rs. 2,43,59,629/- made by the AO is hypothetical by assuming that assessee has sold 2236.50 quintals of Gwar