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. In accordance with the statutory provision, the departmental authorities have made the disallowances. 7. The assessee has contested the disallowance broadly on the following grounds: • In the tax audit report, the auditor has only mentioned the details of contribution received from employees for various as to attract adjustment under section 143(1

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 115BBC(1). Ground No. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT Appeals has grossly erred in not allowing Investment made in the university building of Rs.44,13,515/- as application of income which is quite arbitrary, unjustified, illegal and not based on the facts. Submission 2.1 The Ld. AO erred

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1). The Finance Act, 2006 has introduced w.e.f. 1.4.2007, sub section (2) and sub section (3) of section 14A. The sub section (2) of Section 14A basically lays down the manner in which the disallowance

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. A/R placing reliance on the various judicial pronouncement submitted that no addition can be made either under section 41(1) or under section 68 of the Act as the AO himself did not specify the section under which he intended to make the addition. The ld. A/R further

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowances: (i) U/s 2(22)(e) Rs.3,70,40,305/- (ii) U/s 36(1)(iii) Rs.1,18,44,224/- (iii) Aircraft expenses Rs. 8,99,000/- Grounds for proposed revision u/s 263 are as under 1. Applicability of provisions of section

UMED HOSPITAL MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, EXEMPTION WARDM,, BANGALORE. JODHPUR

1) of section 12A section 44AB [section 44DA, section 50B). section 80-1A, section 80-1B, section 80-IC. section 80- ID section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E. [section 115JB or section 115VW] for to give a notice under Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

1) on 21.04.2023, disallowing the claim of exemption under section 11 and making an addition of Rs. 2 1,60,22,225/-, thereby

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. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. VIDYA BHAWAN SOCIETY, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradacit, Vs M/S. Vidya Bhawan Circle (Exemption), Society, Mohan Singh, Jodhpur Mehta Marg, Fatehpur, Udaipur (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Udaipur Dated 27.06.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

disallowed assessee's entire claim for exemption of income - Tribunal held that denial of exemption under section 13(1)(d)(iii) was to be restricted to only income earned from shares to be taxed at marginal rate under section 164(2

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

2(15). However, on review of the said assessment order and records, for the relevant year, it was found that though the AO has denied the benefits of Section 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee but at the same time, failed to tax the surplus income of Rs. 1,46,35,981/- and disallow

PATEL MINERALS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 56. The confirmation of addition is made without following provisions of law. Hence the addition of Rs. 51,00,000/- is bad in law and be deleted. 2. That appellant reserves his right to add or amend grounds of appeal.” 2 Patel Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Company

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,97,690/- The return was processed on 24.12.2021 by CPC at assessed income of Rs.2,87,21,492/, disallowing the exemption claimed by the appellant of Rs. 1,34,89,828/-, Aggrieved to it. the appellant is in present appeal. I have carefully considered the facts of the case in the light of submission made by the appellant

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2 : ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE BEYOND THE A.O JURISDICTION / POWERS PROVIDED UNDER CLAUSES (i) TO (vi) OF SECTION U/S 143(1)(a) Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the adjustments made by the Ld. A.O. which were beyond the A.O.’s jurisdiction/ powers provided under clauses (i) to (vi) of section u/s 143(1)(a) by disallowing

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2 : ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE BEYOND THE A.O JURISDICTION / POWERS PROVIDED UNDER CLAUSES (i) TO (vi) OF SECTION U/S 143(1)(a) Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the adjustments made by the Ld. A.O. which were beyond the A.O.’s jurisdiction/ powers provided under clauses (i) to (vi) of section u/s 143(1)(a) by disallowing