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

36(1)(va) and 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation claimed thereon. the assessing authority was bound to consider the Explanation. Simply because the facts have been disclosed by the assessee, it does not give immunity from revisional jurisdiction which the Commissioner can exercise under section 263 and as such even in a case where the facts have been disclosed by the assessee to the assessing authority

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

2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for 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

2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for 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

2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for 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

2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation

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

2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation

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

2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

36(1)(va) and section 43(b) of The Income Tax Act for such disallowances are applicable from the Assessment Year 2021- 22 and onwards. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act is bad in law and, void ab-initio and deserves to be annulled

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

36 of Ld CIT Appeal order). 6. As regards to the issue of single invoice of Rs 20,72,000/- on 31.10.2016, the AR submitted that the details of bill No. 294 for Rs 2072000 [Taiwa Mines] was submitted to AO and CIT Appeals (refer page No.37 of Ld CIT Appeals order). He submitted that the Company runs three sand

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

2,73,93,10,472/- declared gross loss of Rs 1,03,37,47,372/- (37.74%) and net loss of Rs.32,77,48,176/- (11.96%). On being asked it was submitted that contract receipts of the assessee- company during the year declined considerably to Rs.2,46,73.49.728/- from Rs 4,28,36,27,201/- as it was in immediately preceding

ANKUR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs. CIT/ ITO, WARD-2, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal with the ground that assessee is eligible for depreciation amount of I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rs.3,69,595/-. As per the assessee, in the tax audit report and in computation wrongly claimed the depreciation amount of Rs.132,525/-. The depreciation to the extent

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest

SIPANI WOOLEN PRIVATE LIMITED,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

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

Bench: Filing Of Income Tax Return & Disallowance On Account Of Incorrect

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, by the DCIT, CPC. 2 Sipani woolen Pvt Ltd. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. The ld. CIT(A), Bikaner was wrong in law as well as in facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 2,26,484/- on account of employer and employee contribution

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the additions in new plant and machinery installed during the year relating to Manufacturing of Ready Mix Concrete. 26.3 The above facts has been accepted by in a similar case additional depreciation has been allowed by Delhi Tribunal on RMC plant in case of YFC Projects

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the act and and added to the income of the assessee. In addition to the cash-credits, the AO has further made addition of Rs. 8,56,000/- u/s 69A of the by treating the deposit in the name of Sh. Mohan Ram Choudhary and Smt.Tulchi Devi

DR. MANISH CHHAPARWAL ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

depreciation if any income remains that income can only be taxed in the hands of the appellant, Further there was no justification in making such addition, as the id. r. AO is himself not sure that such income represents income of the appellant. The addition so made may therefore kindly be deleted. s. 8. Per Contra, Ld. DR strongly relied