RAIS AHMED MEWAFAROSH,DUNGARPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

282/- 0.93 2017-18 5,81,26,519/- 97,48,211/- 16.77 6,27,449/- 1.08 2018-19 6,30,77,725/- 93,09,597/- 15.28 6,31.600/- 1.00 2019-20 8.0873368/- 96,41, 120/- 12.24 8, 12,635/- 1.00 Average of 2013-14 to 2018-19 13.32 1.43% 9.1. The trading results tabulated as above are based on final

RAIS AHMED MEWAFAROSH,DUNGARPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

282/- 0.93 2017-18 5,81,26,519/- 97,48,211/- 16.77 6,27,449/- 1.08 2018-19 6,30,77,725/- 93,09,597/- 15.28 6,31.600/- 1.00 2019-20 8.0873368/- 96,41, 120/- 12.24 8, 12,635/- 1.00 Average of 13.32 1.43% 2013-14 to 2018-19 9.1. The trading results tabulated as above are based on final

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

282, the service was insufficient and\nAO did not have jurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. Thus, the service of notice under\nsection 148 was no service in the eye of law and all subsequent proceedings including the ex\nparte assessment framed on 21.12.2016 in assessee's case were illegal and void ab initio

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

282, the service is insufficient and the Assessing officer does not have\njurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. This proposition of law is supported\nby the decisions of :\nThangam Textiles v. First ITO (1973) 90 ITR 412 (Mad.)\nLakshmi bai v. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 804 (Mysore)\nC.T. Rajagopal v. State of Mysore (1972) 86 ITR 814.\nS.K. Manekia

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

282, the service is insufficient and the Assessing officer does not have\njurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. This proposition of law is supported\nby the decisions of :\nThangam Textiles v. First ITO (1973) 90 ITR 412 (Mad.)\nLakshmi bai v. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 804 (Mysore)\nC.T. Rajagopal v. State of Mysore (1972) 86 ITR 814.\nS.K. Manekia

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

282, the service is insufficient and the Assessing officer does not have\njurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. This proposition of law is supported\nby the decisions of :\nThangam Textiles v. First ITO (1973) 90 ITR 412 (Mad.)\nLakshmi bai v. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 804 (Mysore)\nC.T. Rajagopal v. State of Mysore (1972) 86 ITR 814.\nS.K. Manekia

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

282, the service is insufficient and the Assessing officer does not have\njurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. This proposition of law is supported\nby the decisions of :\nThangam Textiles v. First ITO (1973) 90 ITR 412 (Mad.)\nLakshmi bai v. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 804 (Mysore)\nC.T. Rajagopal v. State of Mysore (1972) 86 ITR 814.\nS.K. Manekia

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

282, the service is insufficient and the Assessing officer does not have\njurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. This proposition of law is supported\nby the decisions of :\nThangam Textiles v. First ITO (1973) 90 ITR 412 (Mad.)\nLakshmi bai v. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 804 (Mysore)\nC.T. Rajagopal v. State of Mysore (1972) 86 ITR 814.\nS.K. Manekia

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

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 of Proceedings, Fixed assets Chart as well as Interest account were furnished together with the Financial Statements of Year under review and immediately preceding year

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.

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 of the Act by the PCIT-1, Jodhpur and a show cause notice was issued as under:- "On perusal of the assessment record it was found that

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

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

282 (SC) wherein it is held that: "The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in S. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. ADIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

C.G. TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), , JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. DCIT,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

C G TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

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

Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature at this stage, both the grounds are dismissed. 6. The ground No. 7 raised by the appellant is regarding charging of interest amounting to Rs. 24,49.836/- u/s 234B of the Act. This being consequential in nature, the AO is directed to allow relief