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

108 & 109/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 (Through Virtual Mode) M/s. Tarun Construction Co., Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward No. 24, Near Bhagat Singh Ward-1(1), Sriganganagar. Chowk, Suratgarh. PAN: AAIFT5316J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.A. Revenue by : Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR Date of hearing : 18.09.2023 Date of pronouncement: 21.09.2023 ORDER These appeals

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

108 & 109/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 (Through Virtual Mode) M/s. Tarun Construction Co., Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward No. 24, Near Bhagat Singh Ward-1(1), Sriganganagar. Chowk, Suratgarh. PAN: AAIFT5316J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.A. Revenue by : Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR Date of hearing : 18.09.2023 Date of pronouncement: 21.09.2023 ORDER These appeals

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

disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80 IB (11A) for income earned under handling and transportation amounting to Rs. 13,43,806/- is unwarranted and unsustainable due to the following reasons:- i. In this connection we would like to state that literal interpretation of words "integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains" will not lead

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

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

108 on line within the prescribed time limit and benefit of section 11 cannot be granted on account of non-filing of form 10B within due date. Therefore no mistake is apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act at this level and accordingly the application is disposed." 4.4 The AO has categorically stated that the appellant

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

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

108 on line within the prescribed time limit and benefit of section 11 cannot be granted on account of non-filing of form 10B within due date. Therefore no mistake is apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act at this level and accordingly the application is disposed." 4.4 The AO has categorically stated that the appellant

DHABAN GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITY,SANGARIA vs. ITO WARD 1 , HANUMANGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

108/-. We note that Section 143(1)(a) deals with processing of returns at CPC. While processing, certain adjustments can be made, such as:  Arithmetical errors,  Incorrect claims,  Disallowance

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

108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113): ". . . From a reading of sub- section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed therein

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

disallowance of Rs. 32,38,02,815/-being non genuine expenses and accordingly whether the Id. CIT(A) is justified in relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT and High Court in the case of assesse for earlier assessment year when the facts of the case are distinguishable. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case

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

section 11 and 12 shall apply to the case of the assessee Accordingly no exemption is granted u/s 11(2) of the IT Act for the year under consideration In result the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before ld. NFAC/ CIT(A). The present appeal filed

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

disallowed. There is very detailed comprehensive and categorical findings by the assessing officer. Cash book was called for vide query dated 5.11.2018 (PB 67). The same was produced and examined as evident from the opening paragraph of the order. Further the reflection of such advance in the balance sheet as clear from the order of the PCIT is a sufficient

PUSHP RAJ BOHRA,JALORE vs. PR. CIT – 1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

108 (Bom) v. CIT vs. Parmanad, D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 137/2014 vi. CIT vs. M/s. Jain Construction, D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 60/2012 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned order of learned CIT. He has submitted that that order under section 263 is a speaking order passed after providing proper opportunity

ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR vs. M/S. MANGALDEEP DARSHAN, JODHPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.78/Jodh/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal Dcit Nagaur Circle C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Nagaur, Rajasthan बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex Vs. 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpa-4401-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

108/- 4. Interest Income 17,03,188/- -16,51,905/- Less : Interest expenses -33,55,093/- Total -1600492/- 3 Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Ld. AO opined that the assessee claimed excess deduction of Rs.16.51 Lacs but no corresponding income was shown and therefore, the same was to be disallowed. 3.2 The assessee explained that

SUBHASH CHAND AGARWAL,MAKRANA vs. DCIT, NAGAUR CIRCLE, NAGAUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.78/Jodh/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal Dcit Nagaur Circle C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Nagaur, Rajasthan बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex Vs. 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpa-4401-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

108/- 4. Interest Income 17,03,188/- -16,51,905/- Less : Interest expenses -33,55,093/- Total -1600492/- 3 Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Ld. AO opined that the assessee claimed excess deduction of Rs.16.51 Lacs but no corresponding income was shown and therefore, the same was to be disallowed. 3.2 The assessee explained that

M/S. PYROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 263 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 2 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR 1. That the Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 18.02.2020 and notice u/s 263 are bad in law and on facts of the case and hence the same may kindly

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners