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

50 of the order, relying on the decision of Commissioner. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co2018 (9) SCC 1, has held that (iii) If the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is given to the subject and there is nothing unjust in a taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

50,000/- and list of all creditors with opening and closing balances which were ignored by the AO. Therefore, the condition for treating the same as income of the assessee under section 41(1) is that the liability ceased to exist as at the end of the financial year relevant to the year under consideration. The AO has not written

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)

50,001 to Rs. 15,00,000 25 per cent 7. Above Rs. 15,00,000 30 per cent: Provided that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous year and other provisions of this

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)

50,001 to Rs. 15,00,000 25 per cent 7. Above Rs. 15,00,000 30 per cent: Provided that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous year and other provisions of this

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

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

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

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 is also contrary to the principles

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

50,589/- out of Rs.58,05,476/- disallowed by ld. AO. 4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose

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

50,589/- out of Rs.58,05,476/- disallowed by ld. AO. 4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose

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

50,589/- out of Rs.58,05,476/- disallowed by ld. AO. 4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose

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

50,589/- out of Rs.58,05,476/- disallowed by ld. AO. 4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose

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

50,589/- out of Rs.58,05,476/- disallowed by ld. AO. 4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose

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

50,589/- out of Rs.58,05,476/- disallowed by ld. AO. 4. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. The facts are taken from ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018 in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08 as a lead case for the purpose

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

50,523.31 Investment in Angel Granite For Capital Contribution 209,15,000.00 194,55,000.00 Total 20,18,85,103.31 168305523.31 Share Capital 558,06,500 558,06,500 Reserves and Surplus 9075,80,125 7930,64,656 Total 963386625 848871156 Investment in terms of% 20.96% 19.82 Thus, even on merits based on this information the PCIT has not commented

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

depreciation on motor vehicles owned by the assessee against the income received from partnership firm which is assessable to tax under the head Profits and gains of business or profession. 7.6 At this juncture, it is interesting to note that, at per Para No. 1.4 of the written submissions (supra), the assessee stated that he is a partner in certain

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

section 142(1) asking for the details. Further, the Ld. PCIT issued the notice dated 09/01/2024 3 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited and asked for the details from assessee about the claim of depreciation on the leasehold property amount to Rs.59,98,438/-. The relevant paragraph of the notice is extracted below:- “1. On perusal of the case

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 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

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.”

50,00,000/- from his OD account and there is a negative balance of Rs. 72,67,346/- in the said account. No one would invest in a loss making company after obtaining loan from the bank The AO could have examined this angle, however, the AO has conducted only the superficial enquiries without going into the depth

SHRI DEVKRIPA TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, BHILWARA CIRCLE, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 24.12.2017. Shri Devkripa Textile Mills P. Ltd. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by Ld. AO for Rs. 26,66,972/- being