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

46,332/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated

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

46,332/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated

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

46,332/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated

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

46,332/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated

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

46,332/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated

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

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 10,84,776/- and gratuity expenses

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

46,25,75,450/-) 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

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

46,187/- u/s 80P(2)(d). In the result, the appeal is allowed." As facts of the assessment year 2014-15 are similar of the facts of the assessment year 2016-17 under appeal, therefore, the following decision of ITAT Jodhpur referred above which is also confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. Based on these observations

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

46 ITR 144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

46 ITR 144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

46 ITR 144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

46 ITR 144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

46 ITR 144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

46 ITR 144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

46 ITR 144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

46 ITR 144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

46 ITR 144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand