IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

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

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

section 56(2) is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the appeal order. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 of the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. 1 and 3 are general in nature. 10. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds which are as under: “1. The order passed by the ld CIT(A) confirming

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

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

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

section 56(2) is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the appeal order. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 of the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. 1 and 3 are general in nature. 10. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds which are as under: “1. The order passed by the ld CIT(A) confirming

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

56,615+68,12,269+13,06,74,650) made on account of difference in contract receipt shown in Form 26AS vis-à-vis receipts accounted by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 15,00,000/- against disallowance

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 as under – (28) That another fact is that the H That another fact is that the Hon’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order on’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished but had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act and disallowance of interest for an amount of Rs. 3,16,663/-. 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “7.1 In the case

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act and disallowance of interest for an amount of Rs. 3,16,663/-. 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “7.1 In the case

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. 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

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whoseprimary object is to provide financial I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 accommodation to its memberswho are all other co-operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” inSection 56

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

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whoseprimary object is to provide financial I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 accommodation to its memberswho are all other co-operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” inSection 56

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

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whoseprimary object is to provide financial I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 accommodation to its memberswho are all other co-operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” inSection 56

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

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whoseprimary object is to provide financial I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 accommodation to its memberswho are all other co-operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” inSection 56

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, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 8,56

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

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

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

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

section 147 of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO has not brought on record any fact by which it can be said that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material fact which were necessary for assessment. Although the assessee did not file objection before the assessing officer, yet the jurisdiction of AO is a legal point

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

section 147 of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO has not brought on record any fact by which it can be said that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material fact which were necessary for assessment. Although the assessee did not file objection before the assessing officer, yet the jurisdiction of AO is a legal point

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

section 147 of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO has not brought on record any fact by which it can be said that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material fact which were necessary for assessment. Although the assessee did not file objection before the assessing officer, yet the jurisdiction of AO is a legal point