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)

45,72,332/- under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Financial Year 2012-13. The Revenue contends that the CIT(A) erred in holding that payments made to Van Suraksha and Prabandh Samitis (VFPMCs) were not contract payments under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argues that the VFPMCs

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.

45,72,332/- under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Financial Year 2012-13. The Revenue contends that the CIT(A) erred in holding that payments made to Van Suraksha and Prabandh Samitis (VFPMCs) were not contract payments under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argues that the VFPMCs

NAVKAR WOLLENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BIKANER vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenavkar Woollens Private Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Rani Bazar, Bikaner, H.O. Income Tax, Circle – 3 Bikaner, Bikaner Bikaner - 334001 Pan No. Aabcn 9287 G Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr & Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2014-15 Challenging Therein Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 2,34,04,480/- On Account Of Difference Between The Fair Market Value & The Issue Price Of The Equity Shares By Questioning The Method Of Valuation.

Section 147 based on information that 51392 shares were issued at the premium of Rs. 120 each by over value assessed particularly in violation of Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules. The AO alleged that while computing the fair market value (FMV) of shares the appellant took the market value of land at Rs. 2,45,50,000/- under

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

45,459/-.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 520/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed in the name of MGB Gamin Bank without bringing the successor on record. Assessment order framed u/s 143(3) in the name MGB Gramin Bank

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

45,459/-.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 520/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed in the name of MGB Gamin Bank without bringing the successor on record. Assessment order framed u/s 143(3) in the name MGB Gramin Bank

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

45,459/-.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 520/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed in the name of MGB Gamin Bank without bringing the successor on record. Assessment order framed u/s 143(3) in the name MGB Gramin Bank

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

45,459/-.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 520/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed in the name of MGB Gamin Bank without bringing the successor on record. Assessment order framed u/s 143(3) in the name MGB Gramin Bank

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

45,459/-.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 520/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed in the name of MGB Gamin Bank without bringing the successor on record. Assessment order framed u/s 143(3) in the name MGB Gramin Bank

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

45,459/-.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 520/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed in the name of MGB Gamin Bank without bringing the successor on record. Assessment order framed u/s 143(3) in the name MGB Gramin Bank

M/S. MOHTA CONSTRUCTION CO.,BIKANER vs. ACIT, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: Us. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- M/S Mohta Construction Co. “1. That The Assessment Completed By The Assessing Officer Is Against The Law & The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) Sustaining The Disallowances/Not Allowing The Deductions Claimed By The Appellant Is Bad At Law.

section 145. It is allowable deduction even after application of profit rate as per the various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court as well as other High Courts. 6. That the Ld. A.O. is not justified in charging the interest. 7. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or delete any ground or grounds

THAR HEAT TRANSFER EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthar Heat Transfer Equipments Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur. B-13 To 16, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aacct 7832 L Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari, Ca Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jodhpur Dated 20/03/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Invoking Section 263 & The Setting Aside Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. The Order Made U/S 143(3) Cannot Be Said To Erroneous Or Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Was Made After Duly Examining The Issue Relating To Capital Gains & The Said Order Cannot Be Said To Be Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Or Revenue. The Allocation Of Value Of Sale Of Land Was On The Basis Of Valuation Adopted By The Stamp Authorities & Was Also Verifiable. The Ld. Pr. Cit Had Erred In Observing That The Appellant Had Taken The Higher Value Of Agriculture Land. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter, Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

45,968/- 380 sq. fts) c. Other assets :  RCC Construction 1% 13,68,000/- Depreciation each year 2280X 600  Stone Patti 1 % 8,36,800/- Depreciation each year  Tinsheet 20718 fts. X .0929 28,87,053/- + 1924.70 X 1500  Boundary Wall 333 Running 99,900/- mts. X 300 3,79,100/- 48,12,643/-  Less Depreciation Total Fair Market Value

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

45 7 Power Purchase agreement with JVVNL 46-60 8 Audit report in 10CCB for all the units 61-72 5.1 In addition the ld. AR of the assessee has also filed a detailed written submission filed before the ld. PCIT and has emphasized to consider even for considering the grounds of appeal so raised

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

depreciation @ 10.32% subject to depreciation, except depreciation on fixed assets claimed to be added during the year under consideration (i.e. for AY 2016-2017). When revenue challenged that order of the ld. CIT(A) net profit rate of 10.32% was applied net of depreciation means no separate deduction of depreciation was allowable. So, applying that precedent ld. AO noted that

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of income-tax paid, if any, less the amount of income-tax claimed as refund, if any, to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law; (v) any amount representing provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

45,638/-. The assessee made no disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. As the assessee was having huge investment in the shares of company that would have resulted in generation of exempt income, the AO had to examine and analyze the issue with reference to the applicability of the provisions of section 14A of the Income

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not as per law. He placed reliance on the decisions referred in the order of Ld. CIT(A) (supra). 7. The Ld. D/R relied on the order of AO by arguing that assessee has not filed any evidence linking that own funds have been utilised for giving the interest