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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10 (Bombay High Court)] 4.2. Non-application of mind is a ground for interference under Section 263 in the case of CIT v. ShriBhagwan Das, (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All) the Division Bench opined that exercise of power under Section 263 was proper when there was no discussion regarding the question as to whether the amount of income shown

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

34 of 1948), or any other fund for the welfare of such employees” (emphasis supplied) 4. The deduction of the said income is provided in ‘Section 36 – Other deductions’ wherein section 36(1)(va)of the Act provides as under:- “36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with

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

34 of 1948), or any other fund for the welfare of such employees” (emphasis supplied) 4. The deduction of the said income is provided in ‘Section 36 – Other deductions’ wherein section 36(1)(va)of the Act provides as under:- “36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with

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

Section 10. The test prescribed under the aforesaid provision is not the income of the educational education. It is the aggregate annual receipts of such educational institution that is prescribed at Rs.1 crore. Therefore, irrespective of the expenditure incurred by those institutions, the exemption is based on the total receipts. Even if the word "aggregate" has to be understood

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

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

disallowance relates to AY 2015-16.[Para 5.6] Therefore, in view of the above Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the Form 10 and resolution submitted during the appellate proceedings. It is humbly prayed before your lordships that Form 10 and the resolution may kindly be accepted at this stage so that the appellant trust can claim the exemption

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:-

disallowance on prior period expenses of INR 10,84,776/- and gratuity expenses of INR 19,33,611/-. Thus, the AO assessed the income of the assessee at INR 2,44,46,977/-. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the order

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

10(38) of the IT Act, 1961, on account of bogus\nLong Term Capital Gain.\n4.\nNow, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.\nThe first ground of appeal before us is a legal ground relates to passing the\norder under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 without\nappreciating true

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

34,89,828/-, Aggrieved to it. the appellant is in present appeal. I have carefully considered the facts of the case in the light of submission made by the appellant as well as the order u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the applicable law in this regard. 6.1. Ground of appeal No. 1: During

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10,437/- out of available unabsorbed balance of Rs 14,22,06,252/-.) and paid tax on MAT. Assessee had paid tax on MAT on the book profit of Rs 8,35,79,797/-. The case was selected for Scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) dtd. 11.08.2018 was issued and duly served upon the assessee, fixing the case

ITO, WARD-1, PALI vs. SHRI MANISH PJAIN, PALI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Ito Vs Shri Manish P Jain Ward-1, 201, Landmark Society Pali J.P. Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajcpj 5271 F

section 68 of the Act have been established therefore, the addition made on this account cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 4,59,89,090/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit is deleted hereby. Further the interest of Rs. 56,10,355/- paid/credit to creditors is also hereby allowed. The appellant succeeds on this

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

10, wherein while considering the claim of the assessee under section\n80 HHC of the income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such\nreport along with the return and filed it subsequently but before completion of\nthe assessment, it would not be fatal. In the case of \"CIT v. Punjab Financial\nCorporation\" reported