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

b) of the I.T. Act 1961. As such, cash deposited of Rs. 16,79,12,657/ -in bank accounts, earned interest income of Rs. 20,07,054/ - and purchase of immovable property to the tune of Rs. 17,76,51,821/ - has remained unexplained. In view of the above, it is clear that total amount

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

6,43,39,915.82 SUNDRY CREDITORS(B) 259,101,790.79 303,940,262.61 319,863,553.74 198,793,676.98 Total (A+B) 347,610,408.79 36,82,80,178.43 319,863,553.74 198,793,676.98 9. As can be seen from the above tables, almost all sundry creditors were of earlier years, therefore, there is no justification to treat

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.

B Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari (CA) & Shri Abhinav Kothari (CA) Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok CIT-DR Date of hearing 17/03/2020 Date of 19/03/2020 Pronouncement O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Pr. CIT-I, Jodhpur dated 26.03.2018 passed

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016. Reply filed by the AR of the assessee has been considered during the course of assessment proceedings but not found acceptable in toto due to the reason that the following creditors were not having sufficient cash balance with them

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016. Reply filed by the AR of the assessee has been considered during the course of assessment proceedings but not found acceptable in toto due to the reason that the following creditors were not having sufficient cash balance with them

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

b) of\nexplanation 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

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

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

b) which relates to Rental Income. The rate of TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that the impugned order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income

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

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 of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year and as the Revenue has not been able to show any distinguishable

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

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 of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year and as the Revenue has not been able to show any distinguishable

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

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 of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year and as the Revenue has not been able to show any distinguishable

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

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 of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year and as the Revenue has not been able to show any distinguishable

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

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

6 th Chopasni Road, Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Jodhpur PAN NO: AABCC5748B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Arun Chordia, C.A. Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR & ITA Nos. 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

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. ADIT CPC, BENGALURU

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

6 th Chopasni Road, Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Jodhpur PAN NO: AABCC5748B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Arun Chordia, C.A. Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR & ITA Nos. 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

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

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

6 th Chopasni Road, Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Jodhpur PAN NO: AABCC5748B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Arun Chordia, C.A. Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR & ITA Nos. 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

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

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

6 th Chopasni Road, Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Jodhpur PAN NO: AABCC5748B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Arun Chordia, C.A. Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR & ITA Nos. 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