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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 68 can be invoked. In the present case, so far as 6th requirement is concerned, it is very much there in existence, inasmuch as the amount has been advanced by account payee cheques, through bank, and is duly supported by documentary evidence, as well as the evidence of the two lenders, and that satisfies the 2nd requirement also

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 68 can be invoked. In the present case, so far as 6th requirement is concerned, it is very much there in existence, inasmuch as the amount has been advanced by account payee cheques, through bank, and is duly supported by documentary evidence, as well as the evidence of the two lenders, and that satisfies the 2nd requirement also

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B,\nconstruction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made\nto Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended\nhypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter\nshall fall under which of the specific sections

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

66 ITR 147 (SC)\nCIT v. Kurban Hussain IbrahimjiMithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC)\nMadan Lal Agarwal v. CISST (1983) 144 ITR 7451 (All.)\nVijay Kumar Jain v. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349, 353 (Punj. & Har.)\nCIT v. Ishwar Singh & Sons (1981) 131 ITR 480 (All.)\nUnless, the notice is served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under

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

66 ITR 147 (SC)\nCIT v. Kurban Hussain IbrahimjiMithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC)\nMadan Lal Agarwal v. CISST (1983) 144 ITR 7451 (All.)\nVijay Kumar Jain v. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349, 353 (Punj. & Har.)\nCIT v. Ishwar Singh & Sons (1981) 131 ITR 480 (All.)\nUnless, the notice is served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under

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

66 ITR 147 (SC)\nCIT v. Kurban Hussain IbrahimjiMithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC)\nMadan Lal Agarwal v. CISST (1983) 144 ITR 7451 (All.)\nVijay Kumar Jain v. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349, 353 (Punj. & Har.)\nCIT v. Ishwar Singh & Sons (1981) 131 ITR 480 (All.)\nUnless, the notice is served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under

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

66 ITR 147 (SC)\nCIT v. Kurban Hussain IbrahimjiMithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC)\nMadan Lal Agarwal v. CISST (1983) 144 ITR 7451 (All.)\nVijay Kumar Jain v. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349, 353 (Punj. & Har.)\nCIT v. Ishwar Singh & Sons (1981) 131 ITR 480 (All.)\nUnless, the notice is served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under

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

66 ITR 147 (SC)\nCIT v. Kurban Hussain IbrahimjiMithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC)\nMadan Lal Agarwal v. CISST (1983) 144 ITR 7451 (All.)\nVijay Kumar Jain v. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349, 353 (Punj. & Har.)\nCIT v. Ishwar Singh & Sons (1981) 131 ITR 480 (All.)\nUnless, the notice is served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

66,99,427/- but as a Capital Gain, thereby ignoring the facts that nature of business of the assessee is 'builder/property developer' as declared in column 10(a) of the 3CD form. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)was justified in allowing the deduction u/s 24(b) on rental income

ACIT, JODHPUR vs. M/S. HASWANI HANDICRAFTS, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Haswani Handicrafts, Central Circle-2, B-2, Bank Colony, Ummaid Jodhpur. Bhawan Palace Road, Rai Ka Bag, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aabfh 5114 P

68 TTJ 027 (Jodhpur) (v) 66 TTJ 482 (Jodhpur) 19. There was no material on record to justify conclusion reached upon by assessing officer for rejection of books, when assessee maintained complete books of accounts in accordance with provisions of Act, and same were audited by auditor and no adverse observation were pointed out by the auditors, therefore, addition made

MITHILA DRUGS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradmithila Drugs Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, F-70, Road No.2, Circle-1, 102A, Mewar Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub Madri, Udaipur-313003. City Centre, Savina, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaccm6767B Assessee By None (W/S) Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2023 Date Of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement

66,828/ and depreciation loss Rs.46,60,897/- respectively without discussing/ mentioning any reason. On further appeal, Id. CIT (A) only allowed the claim of depreciation loss partly to Rs.30,76,508/- and alleged that returns of income were not filed within the time allowed u/s 139(1), in view of the provisions of section 80, business loss

SHRI JITENDRA OJHA ,SIROHI vs. ITO,, SIROHI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Accountant Mrmber Shri Jiterndra Ojha Vs The Ito, S/O Sh. Mangi Lal Ojha , Sirohi. Chhoti Brahmpuri, Sirohi.

section, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that " ............... Since the ld. AO had not proceeded as per the mandatory provision of law, hence the ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the impugned asst. order. The same may kindly be cancelled and quashed. Such action and decision ought to have been sue-moto taken

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

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

68—CIT(A) confirmed reassessment and addition made by AO of share capital\nand unexplained cash credit—Held, notice u/s 148 could be quashed if ‘belief' was not bona fide\nor one based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information—Basis of belief should be\ndiscernible from material on record which was available with AO when he recorded reasons—\nThere

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHAHNAVAJ NAJIK L.H OF LATE SH. IQBAL NAJIK, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Acit Vs Shri Shahnavaj Najik Circle-Pali L/H Of Late Shri Iqbal Najik 173, Ashapura Nagar, Pali (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpn 5861 D

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO also disallowed interest expenditure of Rs.5,83,397/- claimed thereon. Thus the total addition aggregated to Rs.80,83,397/-. 3. Before the Ld CIT(A) the assessee filed evidences to show that the lender has filed suit against the assessee for recovery of loan amount. By admitting those additional evidences

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

66,473/- from Laxmangarh-Salasar Road. Apart from these receipts, the assessee has also shown other receipts of Rs.8,73,575/-. On the gross receipts of Rs.13,67,58,558/-, gross profit of Rs.62,15,997/- was shown and after claiming deduction of Rs.35,92,846/- u/s 80IA, the assessee has shown taxable income of Rs.26