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

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

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

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

SHREE NAVKAR REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

143(3) of the I.T. Act for the A.Y. 2017-18 dated 30.03.2019 has thus been rendered erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue on the issue of non-verification of Large share premium received by the assessee company during the year and the applicability of 56(2)(viib) and any other relevant section of the Income

M/S. BHARAT CERA GLASS LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Income Tax Officer, 1-B-24, Shashtri Nagar, Vs Ward-3, Bhilwara Bhilwara Pan: Aaecb4366K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “Under the facts of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the following issues / additions. (A) Restricting disallowing a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for administrative nature. (B) Disallowances / Addition

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

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

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

143(3) and addition was confirmed for contravening section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11 UA of Income Tax Rule 1962 ( here in after Rule). The difference of amount of share premium with the NAV, calculated by the ld. AO was added back with the total income of the assessee. During hearing, the assessee submitted the valuation of shares under

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

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

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

143(3) and addition was confirmed for contravening section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11 UA of Income Tax Rule 1962 ( here in after Rule). The difference of amount of share premium with the NAV, calculated by the ld. AO was added back with the total income of the assessee. During hearing, the assessee submitted the valuation of shares under

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation) 33,42,711 Capital Expenses 1,84,965 2,84,23,799 Net Surplus 2,97,693 3. The AO(CPC) while processing the return did not allow the revenue expenditure and capital expenditure claimed in the return without assigning any reason and thus assessed the total income at Rs.2,87,21,492/- as against declared income of Rs.2

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

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section 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

BALAJI MARBLES AND TILES PVT LIMITED,KATNI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blebalaji Marbles & Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle -1, 12 Dunne Market, Bargawan, Udaipur. Jabalpur Road, Madhya Pradesh – 483501. Pan No. Aaccb 4886 C Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca (Virtual) Revenue By Shri P.R. Mirdha, Addl. Cit (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur–2 [Cit(A)], Dated 28.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld Cit Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Rejecting The Books Of Account During Appellate Proceedings. 2. The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Enhancing The Addition On Account Of Gp Addition Of Rs 94,24,706/-. 3. The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Comparing The Gp Ratio Of Assessee As 2.07% Whereas The Assessee Explained

section 131/ 270A etc. Therefore, as it appears, in absence of specific mention of the CIT(A) u/s 145, prima facie the same cannot be envisaged to empower the CIT(A) to reject the books by substituting his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer. 12. In the present case, again there was no specific defect noticed in the books

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

2 HARMONY PLASTICS PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR in confirming disallowance of allowance of balance 50% additional depreciation on new plant & Machinery purchased and put to use during the IInd Half of A.Y. 2014-15 on the alleged ground that in terms of clause (iia) of Section 32(1), addl. Depreciation is available in year in which machinery

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