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

2(24)(x) of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (supra) has held as under : “32. The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as Sections 32 - 37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation). Each of these deductions

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)

3) The loss and depreciation referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) shall be deemed to have been

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)

3) The loss and depreciation referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) shall be deemed to have been

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

2. Act Both the appeals related to registration under 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SUNCITY METALS AND TUBES PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

3 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and is therefore eligible for depreciation. The appellant, however, argued that the provisions of Section 49 of the Act should apply, particularly highlighting the definition of "cost of acquisition" in Section 55(2

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.”

2. Your goodself has asked to calculate valuation as on date of allotment instead of last Balance Sheet date. In this regard we submit that the method and date of valuation is as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. And we have given effect of Profit/Loss upto the date of allotment of shares 3. The next issue

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

section 56(2) is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the appeal order. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 of the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. 1 and 3 are general in nature. 10. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds which are as under: “1. The order passed by the ld CIT(A) confirming the order

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

section 56(2) is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the appeal order. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 of the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. 1 and 3 are general in nature. 10. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds which are as under: “1. The order passed by the ld CIT(A) confirming the order

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

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

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

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

3,50,000/- shares @ Rs. 30/- per share of Rs. 01,05,00,000/-. The said amount of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- is shown as security premium in the balance-sheet. Since the assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Assessing Officer invoked section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee

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

3) and NP rate of 7.23% was applied as against negative NP rate of 6.97% shown by the assessee-company. On appeal by the assessee, vide appellate order dated 22.07.2018 the Ld. CIT (A-2), Udaipur in Appeal No. 10181/2018-19 upheld the rejection of books and further directed to estimate profit before depreciation @ 10.32% subject to depreciation, except depreciation

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

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. 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