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

6. It is further submitted that the ROI was filed by the assessee on 01.10.2018. The law prevailing on the said date allowed the assessee to claim a deduction of employees’ contribution to PF/ ESI and did not authorized CPC to take a different view that too by way of adjustment by processing the ROI under section

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

6-3-2007 solely on the basis that the benefit of section 72A had been wrongly allowed to the assessee. In the order of reassessment, that was passed on 27¬12-2007, the claim made by the assessee with reference to the provisions of section 72A was disallowed. On 30-4-2009, the Commissioner issued the impugned notice

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.

68 and Section 56(2)(viib) were applicable only from A.Y. 2013-14. Such a view cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 5. The impugned order U/s 263 is illegal and most unjustified, as the same is not based on any valid material or legal evidence whatsoever on records, but the same

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-

68. (5) That the assessee had made available all the relevant documents as required by the assessing authority while replying to the adjudication proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the same had been duly acknowledged by the assessing authority while passing order u/s 143(3) s under – (6) That it is further

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

68 or u/s. 41(1) of the Act and hence, the addition made at Rs. 25,91,01.791/- is directed to be deleted. Considering my findings contained in para Nos. 7 & 11 (Supra), the total addition of Rs. 34,76,10,409/ is directed to be deleted, ground Nos. 2 to 6 raised by the appellant regarding this issue

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

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

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

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2 to section 147 are applicable in this case, obtained necessary\nsanction separately to issue notice under section 148 from Principal Commissioner\nof Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the IT Act, 1961. Notice\nunder section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 26.03.2021 and duly served upon the\nassessee through

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

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

2 relating to addition of Rs. 33,47,041/- in respect of\nunaccounted interest income on the basis of loose paper found as a result of search\nu/s 68 of the Act.\nThe Ld. AR argued that during the assessment proceedings the appellant had\nsubmitted that he had retracted the statement recorded u/s 132(4) through affidavit\nbefore department. Further

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

2) (d) of the Act by reversing the view taken by the learned CIT (A) in his order dated 12-03-2013 in appeal I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 6 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 No.244/Bikaner/2011-12. As it is noticed that the learned CIT (A) has followed judicial discipline by deleting the disallowance by following the decision

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

2) (d) of the Act by reversing the view taken by the learned CIT (A) in his order dated 12-03-2013 in appeal I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 6 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 No.244/Bikaner/2011-12. As it is noticed that the learned CIT (A) has followed judicial discipline by deleting the disallowance by following the decision

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

2) (d) of the Act by reversing the view taken by the learned CIT (A) in his order dated 12-03-2013 in appeal I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 6 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 No.244/Bikaner/2011-12. As it is noticed that the learned CIT (A) has followed judicial discipline by deleting the disallowance by following the decision

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

2) (d) of the Act by reversing the view taken by the learned CIT (A) in his order dated 12-03-2013 in appeal I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 6 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 No.244/Bikaner/2011-12. As it is noticed that the learned CIT (A) has followed judicial discipline by deleting the disallowance by following the decision

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

2) to Section 263 of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which seeks to clarify that the order passed by the lower authorities to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the event of absence of inquiry which should have been made. The aforesaid clause only provides for situation

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

sections 68 and 69C are fully justified based on the material brought on record. 23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 21/Jodh/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 filed by the assessee is dismissed. 9 24. Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of other appeal i.e ITA No. 20 / Jodh/2018 are exactly identical

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

sections 68 and 69C are fully justified based on the material brought on record. 23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 21/Jodh/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 filed by the assessee is dismissed. 9 24. Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of other appeal i.e ITA No. 20 / Jodh/2018 are exactly identical