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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

13,664/- in view of provision of section 80IA of the Act, disallowance of Rs. 51,58,174/- u/s. 14A of the act and disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of 7 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, due to lack of enquiry

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

disallow the claimed capital expenditure of Rs.5,25,52,586/-. Since, the assessee was hit by provision of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the total taxable income comes to Rs.6,71,88,566/- (Rs.1,46,35,981/- + Rs.5,25,52,586/-), therefore, the assessment done at NIL income by the AO is erroneous as the final computation

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

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

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

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

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

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 of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. We also respectfully relied on the order of the Children Educational

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

disallowance being 8.76% of the revenue, further addition to total income was not justified". It is also logical that when income is being estimated, no addition on account of section 40(a)(ia) be made. The AO is directed to delete separate addition of Rs. 13,87,72.635/- made

SHREE TARAK GURU JAIN GRANTHALYA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU / ITO (EXEMPTION), UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

13(9) and Section 12A(1)(ba) is covering both the returns filed in which application of return is claimed. He further contended that before making such adjustments u/s 143(1)(a), no intimations have been issued to the assessee which was mandatory requirement of the law. In support he placed reliance on the following judgments as under

SHREE TARAK GURU JAIN GRANTHALYA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU / ITO (EXEMPTION), UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

13(9) and Section 12A(1)(ba) is covering both the returns filed in which application of return is claimed. He further contended that before making such adjustments u/s 143(1)(a), no intimations have been issued to the assessee which was mandatory requirement of the law. In support he placed reliance on the following judgments as under

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

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. 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

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

13-10- 2022 has held that benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income-tax Act was available to the assessee as the income tax return was filed within the specified time limit of sub-section 139 of the Income-tax Act. The ITAT made the following observations while passing the order: 10. In my considered opinion the language

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 for Rs. 13

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)

10,740/- during the financial year, out of which Rs. 1,14,06,043/- were corpus donations. The AO observed that Rs. 1,00,13,516/- of these corpus donations were anonymous. The AO, therefore, called upon the Trust to explain why the anonymous donations should not be taxed under section 115BBC(1) of the IT Act. The assessee vide