MAA BHARTI JAN KALYAN TRUST,KOTA vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA Nos 480 & 481/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed as per section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Act. 3. The Ld.DR, on the contrary

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

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

c) is used in entirely different senses, in the relevant deduction clauses. The differentiation is also evident from the fact clauses of Section 36 (1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing Section 36(1)(va) along with Section 2(24)(x), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification, under

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

c) is used in entirely different senses, in the relevant deduction clauses. The differentiation is also evident from the fact clauses of Section 36 (1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing Section 36(1)(va) along with Section 2(24)(x), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification, under

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

PATEL MINERALS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Disallowance on account non 7,58,076/- commencement of business activity treating the same as capital expenditure 3 Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) entire share 51,00,000/- capital and Share Premium Amount Total Addition 58,58,076/- Total Income 51,00,000/- 5. Being aggrieved, appellant filed first appeal before CIT A-1, Udaipur (Raj) which was later

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. VIKRAM ANJANA, CHITTORGARH

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosaindy. Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Vikram Anjana Income-Tax, Kesunda, Chhoti Central Circle-01, Udaipur Sadri, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afkpa 0575 R

C. Disallowance of interest expenditure on account of diversion of interest bearing funds. 3. The assessee herein is a proprietor of M/s U. B. Investment. The assessee derives interest income on advances given by it. 4. The first issue relates to disallowance of excess interest paid to relate parties u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The AO noticed that

M/S. BHARAT CERA GLASS LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Income Tax Officer, 1-B-24, Shashtri Nagar, Vs Ward-3, Bhilwara Bhilwara Pan: Aaecb4366K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Disallowances / Addition of Rs. 13,52,000/- (Rs. 14,63,000/- - 1,11,000/-) u/sec. 56(2)(viib). (C) Any other matter with prior approval of the Hon'ble Bench. 2. In this case on following dates, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. i. 19.01.2023 ii. 08.08.2023 2.1 The notice for scheduling the hearing for 08th August

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

C.A. Revenue By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 11/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement 09/10/2023 O R D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 27.04.2023 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised

PUSHAPRAJ KOTHARI,JASOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER, BARMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years : 2018-19 Puspapraj Kothari Vs. The Acit, Yashwal, Nakoda Road, Jasol, Barmer Circle, 344024 Barmer Pan No: Aaupk1365N Appellant Respondent

2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.1,09,343/- and Rs.3,52,622/-, the assessee’s and revenue’s stand is that the same has been paid before the due date of filing sec. 139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.1,09,343/- and Rs.3,52,622/-, the assessee’s and revenue’s stand is that the same has been paid before the due date of filing sec. 139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that

MONA MARBLES PVT. LD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.1,09,343/- and Rs.3,52,622/-, the assessee’s and revenue’s stand is that the same has been paid before the due date of filing sec. 139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.1,09,343/- and Rs.3,52,622/-, the assessee’s and revenue’s stand is that the same has been paid before the due date of filing sec. 139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that

MONA MARBLES PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.1,09,343/- and Rs.3,52,622/-, the assessee’s and revenue’s stand is that the same has been paid before the due date of filing sec. 139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.1,09,343/- and Rs.3,52,622/-, the assessee’s and revenue’s stand is that the same has been paid before the due date of filing sec. 139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.1,09,343/- and Rs.3,52,622/-, the assessee’s and revenue’s stand is that the same has been paid before the due date of filing sec. 139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that

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

13 In the computation of total income the assessed had already made disallowance of 30% of the expenditure amounting to Rs. 1.25.21.09.040/- on which TDS had not been deducted. The disallowance of Rs. 37,56,32,712/- has been made in the computation of total Income. The addition for the said disallowance has already been made by the assessee

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

c) of the BR Act, 1949 on obtaining licence under Section 22 of the said Act. Conclusion: In the instant case, although the appellant society is an apex cooperative society within the meaning of the State Act, 1984, it is not a co- operative bank within the meaning of Section 5 (b) read with Section

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

c) of the BR Act, 1949 on obtaining licence under Section 22 of the said Act. Conclusion: In the instant case, although the appellant society is an apex cooperative society within the meaning of the State Act, 1984, it is not a co- operative bank within the meaning of Section 5 (b) read with Section