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

vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable

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

vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable

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

vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable

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

vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable

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

vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable

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

vii) That considering above factual position it is respectfully requested to kindly admit the confirmation of all parties for which Id. AO made addition and/or disallowed interest expense claimed by assessee. Confirmation has been annexed herewith along with summary thereof and marked as Annexure- l. Confirmations in respect of unsecured loans have been received from the assessee marked as Annexure

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

vii) It is also observed that prospective amendment was brought by the Finance Act 2012 in the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by inserting the second proviso in sub-clause (in) of clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which reads as under: “Provided further that there an assessee

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii) It is also observed that prospective amendment was brought by the Finance Act 2012 in the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by inserting the second proviso in sub-clause (in) of clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which reads as under: “Provided further that there an assessee

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii) It is also observed that prospective amendment was brought by the Finance Act 2012 in the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by inserting the second proviso in sub-clause (in) of clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which reads as under: “Provided further that there an assessee

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

vii) It is also observed that prospective amendment was brought by the Finance Act 2012 in the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by inserting the second proviso in sub-clause (in) of clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which reads as under: “Provided further that there an assessee

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

vii) It is also observed that prospective amendment was brought by the Finance Act 2012 in the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by inserting the second proviso in sub-clause (in) of clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which reads as under: “Provided further that there an assessee

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii) It is also observed that prospective amendment was brought by the Finance Act 2012 in the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by inserting the second proviso in sub-clause (in) of clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which reads as under: “Provided further that there an assessee

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii) It is also observed that prospective amendment was brought by the Finance Act 2012 in the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by inserting the second proviso in sub-clause (in) of clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which reads as under: “Provided further that there an assessee

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii) It is also observed that prospective amendment was brought by the Finance Act 2012 in the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by inserting the second proviso in sub-clause (in) of clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which reads as under: “Provided further that there an assessee

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii) It is also observed that prospective amendment was brought by the Finance Act 2012 in the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by inserting the second proviso in sub-clause (in) of clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which reads as under: “Provided further that there an assessee

M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

vii. Yours honour has not considered the fats that Branches have received handling and transportation receipts of Rs. 6,74,730/- against which wages for handling and transportation charges paid Rs. 1,64,487/-. viii. Head office (Bikaner) received handling and transportation Rs. 6,69,076/- out of which Infrastructural receipt is only 54,525/- against which wages for handling

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,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not as per law. He placed reliance on the decisions referred in the order of Ld. CIT(A) (supra). 7. The Ld. D/R relied on the order of AO by arguing that assessee has not filed any evidence linking that own funds have been utilised for giving the interest

SHREE VISHWAKARMA SUTRADHAR SAMPATI TRUST,BIKANER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Hearing On The Case.

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act and brought to tax the excess of income of over expenditure at MMR rate for reasons discussed above. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 3. Being not satisfied with the order