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

50 of the order, relying on the decision of Commissioner. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co2018 (9) SCC 1, has held that (iii) If the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is given to the subject and there is nothing unjust in a taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch

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

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

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief

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

2,96,50,000/- by applying the provisions of Section 68. 3.Under the facts and circumstances of the case

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-

section 68 and non-consideration of submission/evidence filed by the assessee. 2. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the appellant is running a petrol pump under the trade name of M/s Mahadev Petroleum. She had filed her ITR showing an income of Rs.8,49,300/- The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

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.

2)(viib) and Section 68 were made applicable from A.Y. 2013-14 in relation to share capital and premium and therefore, no addition was made. This decision of the AO was examining the complete details and this was precisely the reason for which the action U/s 148 was taken. Such a view according to the appellant cannot be said

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

2,00,000/- 5 M/s Bhanwar Lal Lakhara, HUF, Nathdwara Rs. 4,00,000/- 6 Smt. Anita Devi Khandelwal, Nathdwara Rs. 1,50,000/- 7 Smt. Veena Devi Khandelwal, Nathdwara Rs. 5,00,000/- 8 Shri Natwar Lal Khandelwal, Nathdwara Rs. 1,50,000/- Total Rs. 22,00,000/- 4.3 During the course of statements of the above persons

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

2,00,000/- 5 M/s Bhanwar Lal Lakhara, HUF, Nathdwara Rs. 4,00,000/- 6 Smt. Anita Devi Khandelwal, Nathdwara Rs. 1,50,000/- 7 Smt. Veena Devi Khandelwal, Nathdwara Rs. 5,00,000/- 8 Shri Natwar Lal Khandelwal, Nathdwara Rs. 1,50,000/- Total Rs. 22,00,000/- 4.3 During the course of statements of the above persons

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of excavation, transport and civil contract business, Ready Mix Concrete Manufacturing and allied activities. The assessee filed return of income on 23.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 29,02,210/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income

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

2. Without Prejudice to above- That on the facts & circumstances of the case as well as in the law the proceeding initiated under section 147 read with section 148 is bad in law having regard to the facts of the case, written submission and position of law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming

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

68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved

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

68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved

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

68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved

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

68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved

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

Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such\ntime limit would start from

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

Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such\ntime limit would start from

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such\ntime limit would start from

BANSI LAL KUMHAR,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

68 on account of cash deposited in\nthe bank account during the year as unexplained money which has been\nconfirmed by the Ld. NFAC/CIT (A). The Ld. AO and CIT(A) both have not\nconsidered the vital facts and material available on record in true perspective\nand sense and thus, the addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed

RANJEET SHARMA,RAWATSAR vs. ITO, WARD NOHAR,, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. Whether section 68 of the I.T. Act (addition by ITO was made by invoking of the same) is applicable on the present case because there were not a single entry of cash credit during the year. The transactions (labour payment) were in the nature of trade creditors? 3. Whether notice u/s 148 by recording reasons to verify