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

d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of s. 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

D E R PER: DR S. SEETHALAKSHMI , JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 23-08-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2013-14 raising therein following grounds of appeal:- 2 SMT SHAHNAJ VS ITO, WARD-2, CHURU ‘’1. The Lower

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI BASKARAN BR, AM & HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 30/JODH/2020 Assessment Year : 2014-15. cuke Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Wagad Construction Co., Vs. Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Plot No. 15, Near Bhati Engineering Works, Udaipur. Titari Bus Stand. Udaipur. LFkk

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)

13 result in addition of Rs. 36,750/- and entire rental income of Rs. 1,22,500/- was treated as income from other sources. Based on that observation the ld. AO completed the assessment on 26.11.2019. 4. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 27.04.2023 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and facts to invoke & made

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur dated 28.06.2019 [here in after (Ld. CIT(A))] for assessment year 2009-10. 2 Smt. Jaya Mogra 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1

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

capital gain, he cannot simply dispute fact that assessee did not file return—Entire\nreasoning recorded by AO for initiation of reassessment proceeding and issuance of notice\nunder section 148 was on wrong and incorrect facts that assessee has never filed return of\nincome, and in fact, it was filed—Initiation of reassessment proceeding u/s.147 and notice under\nsection

ITO, WARD-3, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. SHRI BADRI PRASAD, SRIGANGANAGAR

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by revenue and is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner dated 25.06.2018 [here in after ld. CIT(A))] for assessment year 2013-14 which in turn arise from the order dated 30.12.2017 passed under 2 Shri Badri Prasad section 143(1

MARBLE KINGDOM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

d, adjust the said sum against the amount paid under the various provisions of the Act. 19. In plain terms, section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustments, which are, as noted earlier, arithmetical or prima-facie in nature. With effect from

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

d) of the Act, which the A.O. completely failed. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that even the bank statement which was called by the A.O. directly from the bank clearly indicate that there was sufficient credit balance in the bank account of the lender. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) considered various judicial pronouncements and after applying the ratio

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

d) of the Act, which the A.O. completely failed. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that even the bank statement which was called by the A.O. directly from the bank clearly indicate that there was sufficient credit balance in the bank account of the lender. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) considered various judicial pronouncements and after applying the ratio

ADITYA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ,JODHPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU / ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 26.11.2021 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2019-20 which in turn arise from the order dated 01.05.2020 passed under section 143(1) of the Income

BHAMASHAH SUNDARLAL DAGA CHARITABLE TRUST,BIKANER vs. CIT - EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.278/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga The Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, V Income Tax-Exemption, Bagree Mohallan, S Jaipur. Bikaner – 334001. Pan: Aaetb1013C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

d)…………. (4) ………………………. (5) This section applies to donations to any institution or fund referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), only if it is established in India for a charitable purpose and if it fulfils the following conditions, namely :— (i) where the institution or fund derives any income, such income would not be liable

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

d. CIT(A) is also contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law hence the same is illegal, bad in law, against the principle of natural justice. The same may kindly be deleted in full.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

d. CIT(A) is also contrary to the real facts of the case\nand not according to the provision of law hence the same is illegal, bad in law, against the\nprinciple of natural justice. The same may kindly be deleted in full.”\n“Revised Ground No.4: Rs.67,50,000/-: The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred

PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

d accepting the returned income.\nFurther, it is found that the assessee has invested in purchase of plots in\nAdeshwar Nagar Developed by Sh. Mahendra Kankaria. The details of\npayment made by the assessee and name in which pattas were applied\nand issued are Plot No. 5 and 52, total area 4800 sq.fts. total amount

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

d. CIT(A) is also contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the\nprovision of law hence the same is illegal, bad in law, against the principle of natural\njustice. The same may kindly be deleted in full.”\n“Revised Ground No.4: Rs.67,50,000/-: The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

d. CIT(A) is also contrary to the real facts of the case and not\naccording to the provision of law hence the same is illegal, bad in law, against the\nprinciple of natural justice. The same may kindly be deleted in full.”\n“Revised Ground No.4: Rs.67,50,000/-: The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred

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

D-82-B,\nSiwad Area, Krishna Marg,\nBapu Nagar, (Rajasthan).\nVs The ITO,\nWard,\nNohar\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AKNPP9785A\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nPresent for Assessee\n: Shri R.S.Poonia, CA\nPresent for Revenue\n: Shri Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR)\nDate of Hearing\n:\n30.04.2025\nDate of Pronouncement:\n17.06.2025\nORDER\nPER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP\nThe assessee