INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

23A) of section 10;\n(ca) person referred to in clause (23AAA) of section 10;\n(d) institution referred to in clause (23B) of section 10;\n(e) fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to\nin sub-clause (v) or any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-\nclause (iiiab

BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. DY. CIT (ACIT) CIRCLE -2 AJMER , CR BUILDING,OPP. SESSION COURT,JAIPUR ROAD ,AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbaroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, 2343 Rajasthan Patrika Building, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer – 305004 Pan No. Aaajb1164C ...... Appellant

section 23A of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 by amalgamating three existing regional rural banks, namely Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Hadoti Gramin Bank and Rajasthan Gramin Bank sponsored by the Bank of Baroda, Central Bank and Punjab National Bank respectively. 3. For the A.Y. under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

disallowed the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act stating that the Appellant have deposited the amount under Capital Gains Scheme after the due date of filing return of income and the same was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that while making such addition, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) have not appreciated

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 2(24)(x) of the Act. However, the assessee has itself disallowed only Rs 42,14,588/- in its computation. Thus the remaining amount Rs 2,59,71,570/- should have been disallowed by the AO. (ii) It is seen that in clause 34(a) of the audit report form 3CD the auditors have reported that the assessee