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

143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. • Amendment to section 36(1)(va) introducing Explanation-2, which clarifies that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply for the purpose of determining the due date, vis a vis, section 36(1)(va), will apply prospectively. • Without prejudice, even if it is not allowable under section 36(1)(va), alternatively

PUSHP RAJ BOHRA,JALORE vs. PR. CIT – 1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

143(3) in considering detailed submissions and documentary evidence in support of agricultural income shown at Rs. 58,17,777/-, warrant the Ld. PCIT to hold it erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the present case, the learned CIT exercised his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act. Let's refer

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3) dated 01.02.2021 is suffering from specific defects, hence the order so passed by the AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The order of the assessing officer therefore, considered liable to revision under clause (a) & (b) of the Explanation (2) of section 263 of the Act. 8 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private

SHREE RAM COLLOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

143(3) of the Act by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi on 09/04/2021 and addition was made related to duty draw back not shown in the return of income amount to Rs.12,547/-. The Ld. PCIT by invoking provisions of section 263 issued notice to the assessee by treating this assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

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), addl. Depreciation is available in year in which machinery is new and first put to use and not for any succeeding year. Further, carry forward of additional dep. Is substituted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01-04- 2016 and is applicable from A.Y. 2016-17 onwards without considering the fact that position is clarified by amendment

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation / B/f business losses & paid taxes on MAT. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and after issue of notice u/s 143(2)/ 142(1) the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 28/12/2019 after thoroughly considering the reply furnished by the assessee at a total income of Rs.10,85,93,969/- by making following

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 20,53,00,090/- making the additions/disallowances. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) by giving relief, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order

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 143(1) / 154 and on facts also the same is outside the scope of such adjustment. 1.2. It is well settled that no addition can be made in a order u/s 143(1) / 154 where detailed reasoning is required for making any addition. The disallowance of depreciation

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(1) disallowing exemption claimed under section 11 which resulted in a demand to be payable by the taxpayer amount of Rs. 13489828. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that appellant is registered u/s. 12A and 80G by the Commissioner as it is engaged in imparting education and running various education institutions. The appellant

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)

143(1) of the Act issued by CPC, has been dismissed for the above said reasons. 3. Arguments have been advanced for both the appeals simultaneously, as common issue is involved therein. Contentions 4. Ld. AR for the appellant has referred to Form 10 IE i.e. copy of application to exercise option under clause (i) of sub- section

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)

143(1) of the Act issued by CPC, has been dismissed for the above said reasons. 3. Arguments have been advanced for both the appeals simultaneously, as common issue is involved therein. Contentions 4. Ld. AR for the appellant has referred to Form 10 IE i.e. copy of application to exercise option under clause (i) of sub- section

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

143 taxmann.com 402 wherein, the decision in the case of Swati Bajaj [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 has been followed. I also find support from the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikash Jain [2023] 146 taxmann.com 210. Accordingly, addition of Rs.1,65,22,307/- u/s 68 of the Act is hereby

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

section 143(3). The order so passed is bad in law and bad on facts and is passed without reasonable opportunity of being heard and without appreciating submissions made. The appellant has stated inter alia that the AO did not provide reasonable opportunity to him. It is noticed from the order that the AO has passed the order after providing

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

section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable. The omission has resulted in incorrect computation of business income by Rs. 81,99,926/— . 9 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. On perusal of assessment records

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

section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable. The omission has resulted in incorrect computation of business income by Rs. 81,99,926/— . 9 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. On perusal of assessment records

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

section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable. The omission has resulted in incorrect computation of business income by Rs. 81,99,926/— . 9 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. On perusal of assessment records

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

section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable. The omission has resulted in incorrect computation of business income by Rs. 81,99,926/— . 9 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. On perusal of assessment records

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

section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable. The omission has resulted in incorrect computation of business income by Rs. 81,99,926/— . 9 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. On perusal of assessment records

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

section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable. The omission has resulted in incorrect computation of business income by Rs. 81,99,926/— . 9 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. On perusal of assessment records