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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act the issue was covered based on the jurisdictional high court decision and therefore, the issue was debatable and law does not permit the review of each every order after the same is considered and decided based

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.

12. 6.2 Further, in the case of Bhagawan Sree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Educational Society, Adoni, 134 taxmann.com 310 (2022) – The ITAT, Hyderabad Tribunal held that appeal pending before CIT (Appeals) could not be termed as an assessment pending before Assessing Officer even if CIT (Appeals) had coterminous powers with that of Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting exemption under

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

Section 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee but at the same time, failed to tax the surplus income of Rs. 1,46,35,981/- and disallow

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

12. While section 37 provides that the expenditure should not be an expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 of the Act, it is submitted that section 36 of the Act does not provide details on nature of expenditure, rather provides specific cases of deductions in computing the total income of the assessee. Further, section

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

12. While section 37 provides that the expenditure should not be an expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 of the Act, it is submitted that section 36 of the Act does not provide details on nature of expenditure, rather provides specific cases of deductions in computing the total income of the assessee. Further, section

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

disallowed.(Para 5.3 of the order) (d) The assessee trust has contravened the provisions of section 11(2) of the IT Act and consequently nothing contained in the provisions of Section 11 and 12

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)

12,825/- which is quite arbitrary, unjustified, illegal and not based on facts. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT Appeals has grossly erred in interpreting provisions of section 115BBC(2) by holding that (refer para 7.5 and 7.6 of appeal order) the provisions of the said section only applies to religious

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

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

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. 4. Ground

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

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

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. 4. Ground

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

disallowed was not justified and deserves to be allowed to the appellant. 1.7. Your kind attention is also invited towards the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari reported in 74 ITR 57 (SC) in which also it has been held as under : “Business Expenditure – Allowability – Expenditure incurred for earning share income

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:-

disallowed assessee's entire claim for exemption of income - Tribunal held that denial of exemption under section 13(1)(d)(iii) was to be restricted to only income earned from shares to be taxed at marginal rate under section 164(2), and not entire income of assessee - Whether, on facts, view taken by Tribunal was just and proper and, thus

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)

disallowance was purely technical in nature and not on the merits of the exemption claim. He pointed out that Form 10B had been uploaded by the auditor within time and that the delay was only in verification, which was cured before the return was processed. It was contended that the audit report was very much available on record before

M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

12 M/s Shree Tirupati Associates “The circular makes it clear that these are merely illustrative instances of cases in which rule 6DD(j) would be applicable. The above circular was explained in Paul Bros. v. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 356 (Gauhati), with the following observations : “Pursuant to the provision in sub-section (3) of section 40A, rule 6DD was promulgated

NAVAL KISHORE DAGA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

12-08-2021 stating as under; "Appellant is in receipt of your Notice asking for certain clarification on Interest issue. We would like to submit that matter of Interest which has been taken in Appeal has arisen because of simple thing that CPC while processing of Return has taken Interest directly from Form-26AS without considering Interest Expenses and that

DCIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN GOYAL, FARIDABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotedcit Vs. Shri Brij Bhushan Circle, Pali., Goyal, Jodhpur. House No. 331, Sector Rajasthan. 16A, Faridabad, Haryana.-121002 Pan/Gir No. : Aawpg8405D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 80IC of the Act for the year under consideration was incorrectly disallowed by the AO, therefore, the same is hereby directed to be allowedThe appellant succeeds on this issue. The ground Nos.2 & 3 raised by the appellant regarding this issue stand allowed. Since, the AO in his order at Page No. 12

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

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

section 139. Therefore, considering the submissions made and after perusal of the documents submitted and taking into account the entire conspectus of this case and judicial pronouncement cited above, I see no reason to uphold from the findings of the assessing officer regarding non allowance of deduction u/s 35AD. Hence, this ground of appeal is Allowed." 11. Thus

ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P.LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of depreciation claimed in respect of wind mill and accessories at higher rate of 80%. 12. Briefly, the facts are, in course of assessment proceedings, while examining assessee’s claim of depreciation on various assets, the Assessing Officer observed that it has claimed depreciation at the maximum rate of 80% in respect of evacuation charges, foundation work, transformers

M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of depreciation claimed in respect of wind mill and accessories at higher rate of 80%. 12. Briefly, the facts are, in course of assessment proceedings, while examining assessee’s claim of depreciation on various assets, the Assessing Officer observed that it has claimed depreciation at the maximum rate of 80% in respect of evacuation charges, foundation work, transformers

ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P.LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of depreciation claimed in respect of wind mill and accessories at higher rate of 80%. 12. Briefly, the facts are, in course of assessment proceedings, while examining assessee’s claim of depreciation on various assets, the Assessing Officer observed that it has claimed depreciation at the maximum rate of 80% in respect of evacuation charges, foundation work, transformers