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

10. Thus, from the very inception of the provisions in the statute, the intention of the legislature, as could be gathered from the language used in the provisions, is quite clear that unless employees’ contribution to certain funds such as PF or ESI are not remitted to the accounts of the concerned employees within the due date provided under

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

10,409/- on account of unexplained sundry creditors and advance from customers. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) has erred by admitting additional evidence without granting requisite opportunity to the Assessing Officer. 3. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either

SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

10 or section 10AA or section 16 or clause (b) of section 24 (in respect of the property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 23) or clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iia) or sub-clause

SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

10 or section 10AA or section 16 or clause (b) of section 24 (in respect of the property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 23) or clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iia) or sub-clause

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

10. In my considered opinion the language of the aforementioned Circular is very clear and unambiguous in so far as the return of income filed u/s. 139 of the Act is concerned. Section 139 has several sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (4a), (5). I am of the considered view that if the return is filed within the specified time

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

section 10(1) of 1922 Act – Expenditure by way of salary and bonus to staff, maintenance of car and travelling expenses for the purpose of earning such income, therefore allowable as business expenditure.” b. RAM MURTI SOOD vs. ITO (1982) 14 TTJ (CHD) 352 Business Expenditure—Allowability of deduction—Personal car used by assessee partner for business of firm—Assessee

ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P.LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

10. Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that the issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue and restore the disallowance made

ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P. LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

10. Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that the issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue and restore the disallowance made

M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

10. Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that the issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue and restore the disallowance made

M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

10. Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that the issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue and restore the disallowance made

ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P.LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

10. Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that the issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue and restore the disallowance made

HARMONY PLASTICS PVT.LTD., ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad180/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) M/S. Harmony Plastics Pvt Ltd. V The Acit S F-335-339, Bhamashah Industrial Circle-1 Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur Uddaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch 5399 D

Section 32(1)(iia) read alongwith the relevant proviso would have us come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee claiming the balance 10 per cent of additional depreciation

MADHAV UNIVERSITY,PINDWARA, SIROHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α No.789 &790/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year:2024-25) Madhav University Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Exemption, Jaipur Pindwara, Madhav Hills, Nh 27, Vpo Bharja, Pindwara, Sirohi Rajasthan-307023 Pan: Aasam7855L Shri Amit Kothari Shri M.K. Jain, Cit(Dr.) Present For Assessee Present For Revenue Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Bench: The Instant Appeals Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (For Brevity, 'Ld.Cit(E)'] Order Passed Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') & Order Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act, Date Of Orders 30/09/2024. 2. Act Both The Appeals Related To Registration Under Section 12Ab& 80G Of The

section 12AB& 80G of the ITA No.789/Jodh/2024 3. The assessee has taken following grounds:- "1. a. The order passed by Id. CIT(Exemption) u/s 12A In Form 10AD rejecting the application made for registration u/s 11/12 of the Act is bad in law and bad on facts. b. The order passed is also contrary to the principles

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the case MGB Gramin Bank for the A.Y. 2007—08 after recording reasons of reopening on 13—03— 2014 vide office letter No. 513. Where the Reasons were recorded as below:— 1. 'On examination

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the case MGB Gramin Bank for the A.Y. 2007—08 after recording reasons of reopening on 13—03— 2014 vide office letter No. 513. Where the Reasons were recorded as below:— 1. 'On examination

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the case MGB Gramin Bank for the A.Y. 2007—08 after recording reasons of reopening on 13—03— 2014 vide office letter No. 513. Where the Reasons were recorded as below:— 1. 'On examination

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the case MGB Gramin Bank for the A.Y. 2007—08 after recording reasons of reopening on 13—03— 2014 vide office letter No. 513. Where the Reasons were recorded as below:— 1. 'On examination

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the case MGB Gramin Bank for the A.Y. 2007—08 after recording reasons of reopening on 13—03— 2014 vide office letter No. 513. Where the Reasons were recorded as below:— 1. 'On examination

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

10,47,31,010/—. Then Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) Pali submitted proposal for initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the case MGB Gramin Bank for the A.Y. 2007—08 after recording reasons of reopening on 13—03— 2014 vide office letter No. 513. Where the Reasons were recorded as below:— 1. 'On examination