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

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)

25. More importantly, we note that Section 11(2) speaks of a statement in the prescribed form (which in this case is Form 10) being "furnished" to the AO. The change in the prescribed manner under Section 11(2)(a) for the submission of Form 10 and which moved to a digital filing was introduced for the first time

VIJAY RATAN SONI,DIDWANA, NAGAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

section 143(3) on 17.12.2019 at a total income of Rs.8,25,330/- after making, inter alia: disallowance of Rs.1,50,583/- being 10

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

CHHITAR MAL JAIN ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of set off of Short Term Capital Loss by Short and Long Term Capital Gains as provided in section 70 of the Act. 3 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and/or delete all or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the final hearing, if necessary.” 3. Brief fact of the case

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

25,782/- to the returned income of Rs. 7,50,190/-. While completing the\nassessment, the AO made a protective addition of Rs. 1,84,76,000/- in the hands of\nthe assessee. Besides, the AO also made an addition of Rs. 48,49,782/- on account\nof bogus Long Term Capital Gain after disallowing the claim under section 10

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

10. In my considered opinion the language of the aforementioned Circular is very clear and unambiguous in so far as the return of income filed u/s. 139 of the Act is concerned. Section 139 has several sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (4a), (5). I am of the considered view that if the return is filed within the specified time

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. ADARSH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , SIROHI.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

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

25,33,360/-. The AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) on 29.12.2016 in the status of AOP, inter alia, disallowing (i) interest u/s 40(a)(ia) read with s.194A of Rs.43,91,02,618/-, (ii) professional & law charges of Rs.9,88,546/- (iii) advertisement expenses of Rs.5,10,547/- (iv) commission of Rs.22

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. ADARSH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , SIROHI.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

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

25,33,360/-. The AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) on 29.12.2016 in the status of AOP, inter alia, disallowing (i) interest u/s 40(a)(ia) read with s.194A of Rs.43,91,02,618/-, (ii) professional & law charges of Rs.9,88,546/- (iii) advertisement expenses of Rs.5,10,547/- (iv) commission of Rs.22

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:-

10,84,776/- and addition of Rs. 19,33,611/- on account of disallowance of provisions of gratuity. The appellant also submitted that it is settled law that the profit and loss account should be prepared on commercial principles and not under the Income Tax Act. The 14 | P a g e appellant relied on the decision

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

25,75,450/-) was included in estimated addition by applying N.P. rate of 10.32%, 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) is justified in deleting addition of Rs. 13,87,72,635/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) which was disallowed by assesse itself and it should not have been made part of estimation

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

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

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

HARMONY PLASTICS PVT.LTD., ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad180/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) M/S. Harmony Plastics Pvt Ltd. V The Acit S F-335-339, Bhamashah Industrial Circle-1 Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur Uddaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch 5399 D

25,990/- by disallowing additional depreciation of Rs.21,81,146/-. 2.2 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the disallowance so made by the AO and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- 3 HARMONY PLASTICS PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR ‘’6. I have carefully considered

M/S. LILA TRADING COMPANY,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Lila Trading Company, Income Tax Officer, Shop No. 97, New Dhan Mandi Vs Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar Sri Ganganagar Pan: Aaafl5911B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner Dated 31.12.2019 Emanating From The Order Of Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee Are As Under:- “1. In Facts & Circumstances, Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified In Sustaining 10% Disallowance Of Rs.53,220 Made Out Of Aggregate Claim Of Rs.5,32,209 Under Five Heads Of Expenses On The Grounds That Some Of Vouchers Were Produced & Most Of The Vouchers Being Self- Made Verification Of Possibilities Of Personal Use Or Their Correctness Could Not Be Ascertained But M/S Lila Trading Company

section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are as under:- “1. In facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining 10% disallowance of Rs.53,220 made out of aggregate claim of Rs.5,32,209 under five heads of expenses on the grounds that some of vouchers were

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete the disallowance. 9.7 On the other hand ld. DR relied upon the detailed finding recorded in the order of the lower authorities. 9.8 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material placed