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

10. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that the amount of employees contribution paid by the assessee should be treated as an expenditure allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Actdue to the reason that the employees contribution is treated as income of the assessee under section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Further the said amount

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

10. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that the amount of employees contribution paid by the assessee should be treated as an expenditure allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Actdue to the reason that the employees contribution is treated as income of the assessee under section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Further the said amount

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

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

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

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

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)

10. 34. We, accordingly, allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned order under Section 148A (d) dated 31 March 2023 and the consequent initiation of reassessment proceedings through notice under Section 148 of the Act of even date. 5.1 We also rely upon the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Navjeevan Charitable Trust

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

disallowance. The Circular No. 8/2014 rather clarifies the reason as to why the share of profits of a partnership firm is exempt from tax in the hands of partner. The same is reproduced here-in-under: "SECTION 10(2A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 - FIRM -SHARE OF PROFITS TO PARTNER OF FIRM – CLARIFICATION ON INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 43(b) of The Income Tax Act for such disallowances are applicable from the Assessment Year 2021- 22 and onwards. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act is bad in law and, void ab-initio and deserves to be annulled as the same is based

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA, SHASTRI NAGAR, BHILWARA vs. BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANG LIMITED, AJMER ROAD, BHILWARA

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

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

disallowing exemption claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 8. In the latest judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer”, [2023] 154 taxmann.com 305 (SC) has observed as under: “15.13. Further, under the provisions of the State Act, 1984, 'agricultural and rural development bank

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

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

2) (d) of the Act by reversing the view taken by the learned CIT (A) in his order dated 12-03-2013 in appeal I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 6 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 No.244/Bikaner/2011-12. As it is noticed that the learned CIT (A) has followed judicial discipline by deleting the disallowance by following the decision

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

2) (d) of the Act by reversing the view taken by the learned CIT (A) in his order dated 12-03-2013 in appeal I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 6 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 No.244/Bikaner/2011-12. As it is noticed that the learned CIT (A) has followed judicial discipline by deleting the disallowance by following the decision

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

2) (d) of the Act by reversing the view taken by the learned CIT (A) in his order dated 12-03-2013 in appeal I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 6 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 No.244/Bikaner/2011-12. As it is noticed that the learned CIT (A) has followed judicial discipline by deleting the disallowance by following the decision

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

2) (d) of the Act by reversing the view taken by the learned CIT (A) in his order dated 12-03-2013 in appeal I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 6 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 No.244/Bikaner/2011-12. As it is noticed that the learned CIT (A) has followed judicial discipline by deleting the disallowance by following the decision

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:-

section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. He therefore, treated the surplus amounting to INR 2,11,32,268/- as business income and further made addition on account of disallowance on loss of sale of fixed asset of INR 2,96,322/-, disallowance on prior period expenses of INR 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 provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

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 provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

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 provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend