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

section 10(1) of 1922 Act – Expenditure by way of salary and bonus to staff, maintenance of car and travelling expenses for the purpose of earning such income, therefore allowable as business expenditure.” b. RAM MURTI SOOD vs. ITO (1982) 14 TTJ (CHD) 352 Business Expenditure—Allowability of deduction—Personal car used by assessee partner for business of firm—Assessee

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

10, section 10A [section 10AA], clause (b) of sub-section (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

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

12-2007, the claim made by the assessee with reference to the provisions of section 72A was disallowed. On 30-4-2009, the Commissioner issued the impugned notice under section 263 on the ground that the assessment order passed on 27-12-2007 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assessee challenged said notice contending that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act the issue was covered based on the jurisdictional high court decision and therefore, the issue was debatable and law does not permit the review of each every order after the same is considered and decided based

SHREE VISHWAKARMA SUTRADHAR SAMPATI TRUST,BIKANER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Hearing On The Case.

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act and brought to tax the excess of income of over expenditure at MMR rate for reasons discussed above. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 3. Being not satisfied with the order

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

12. While section 37 provides that the expenditure should not be an expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 of the Act, it is submitted that section 36 of the Act does not provide details on nature of expenditure, rather provides specific cases of deductions in computing the total income of the assessee. Further, section

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

12. While section 37 provides that the expenditure should not be an expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 of the Act, it is submitted that section 36 of the Act does not provide details on nature of expenditure, rather provides specific cases of deductions in computing the total income of the assessee. Further, section

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)

12,825/- which is quite arbitrary, unjustified, illegal and not based on facts. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT Appeals has grossly erred in interpreting provisions of section 115BBC(2) by holding that (refer para 7.5 and 7.6 of appeal order) the provisions of the said section only applies to religious

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:-

10 | P a g e 13(1)(d). Accordingly, Assessing Officer 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), and not entire income of assessee - Whether

BHARAT MATA MANDIR NYAS,BANSWARA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

12 Assessment Year: 2016-17 ld. AO has processed the return u/s 143(1) beyond the jurisdiction for disallowing the deduction u/s 10(23C) further the issue is agitated that the turnover of the society should be considered on basis of individual educational institution not for the whole of the society itself. The ld. AR respectfully relied on the order

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

disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section 147/148 by 10

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

disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section 147/148 by 10

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

disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section 147/148 by 10

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

disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section 147/148 by 10

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

disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section 147/148 by 10

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

disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section 147/148 by 10

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)

disallowance was purely technical in nature and not on the merits of the exemption claim. He pointed out that Form 10B had been uploaded by the auditor within time and that the delay was only in verification, which was cured before the return was processed. It was contended that the audit report was very much available on record before

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

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

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. 4. Ground

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

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

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. 4. Ground