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

disallowances made are beyond the scope and ambit of adjustment provided under section 143(1)(a) while processing the returns of income. • At the time of filing of returns of income by the assessee for the respective assessment years, the law prevailing on the said date allowed the assessee to claim deduction of employees’ contribution

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

disallowances made are beyond the scope and ambit of adjustment provided under section 143(1)(a) while processing the returns of income. • At the time of filing of returns of income by the assessee for the respective assessment years, the law prevailing on the said date allowed the assessee to claim deduction of employees’ contribution

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

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction

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

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction

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

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction

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

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction

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

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction

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

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

C. Parwal, C.A. Revenue By Shri Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing 04/07/2023 Date of 10/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 02/12/2022 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

23)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of the stock\nand gradually rise its price many times. This is done through low volume\ntransaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price.\nWhen the price reaches the desired level, the beneficiary, who bought the shares

MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotemohan Lal Sukhadia Vs. Ito (Exemption), University Aaykar Bhawan Savina, 1, Mlsu, Pratapnagar, Udaipur-313001, Udaipur-313001 Rajasthan. Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaajm1548D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(1) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 143(1) of the Act denying the benefit u/sec 10(23)(C) (iiab) of the Act vide order dated 16-06-2020. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal and statement of facts and has issued notices of hearing and since

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

23 Varaha Infra Ltd. current year the same is for full year. The details of these loans had also been given in the Audited Balance Sheat. 13 In the computation of total income the assessed had already made disallowance of 30% of the expenditure amounting to Rs. 1.25.21.09.040/- on which TDS had not been deducted. The disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

c) of sub-section (8), such business (iv) (ab) on or after the 1st day of April, 2010, where the specified business is in the nature of building and operating a new hospital with at least one hundred beds for patients; The new hospital came up after 1.4.2010 and is more than 100 beds and is the only project

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

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

10 SHREE BHAIRAV SEVA We find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court SAMITI vs. INCOME TAX in case of CIT vs. Xavier Kalavani Mandal (P.) OFFICER (2022) 112 TLC Ltd. (supra) held that in order to claim exemption 072 (ITAT, Mumbai) under section 11, the assessee can filed audit report in Form 10B even at later stage either before

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

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

10 SHREE BHAIRAV SEVA We find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court SAMITI vs. INCOME TAX in case of CIT vs. Xavier Kalavani Mandal (P.) OFFICER (2022) 112 TLC Ltd. (supra) held that in order to claim exemption 072 (ITAT, Mumbai) under section 11, the assessee can filed audit report in Form 10B even at later stage either before

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

c) as Cooperative Societies for purposes of Income Tax. In the absence of non-obstante clause, the mere fact that a restrictive condition was imposed in relation to a Cooperative Bank for regulating the benefit of Section 80P does not in any manner alter the pre-existing situation. By virtue of Section 22, Regional Rural Banks continue to be deemed

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10. The ground of appeal no. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 144/Jodh/2022 are similar to the ground no. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 143/Jod/2022. The bench does not feel imperative to repeat the related facts, grounds, and findings on the similar grounds in this appeal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10. The ground of appeal no. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 144/Jodh/2022 are similar to the ground no. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 143/Jod/2022. The bench does not feel imperative to repeat the related facts, grounds, and findings on the similar grounds in this appeal