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

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

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

3) dated 12.12.2019 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue vide impugned Order u/s 263 dated 30.03.2022 holding that though the AO has denied the benefits of 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 the claimed capital

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

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

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

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

3) in computation of income. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the action of Ld AO for not allowing set off of brought forward capital loss of Rs. 13,01,585/- in the computation sheet. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

3 is, therefore, dismissed. 8.3. GoA no. 4- "The Id. AO has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 13,87,72,635/- for business expenditure for non-deduction of tax. Since the AO has applied net profit rate on total turnover no separate disallowance should be made. The separate addition so made is bad in law and bad on facts

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.

13(8) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee’s submission was carefully considered. As per the provisions of Section 11 and 12AA of the Income-tax Act, the registration of the trust under Section 12AA is mandatory in order to claim the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. In the absence of the registration u/s 12AA

LAKHPAT TRADING AND INDUSTRYS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelakhpat Trading & Acit, Circle-3 Industryspvt. Ltd. Jodhpur G-72/73 79/80, 1St Phase, Boranada, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Aaccl 5668 C Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/ Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein The Rejection Of Its Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3), Estimation Of Income & Reducing Genuine Sales.

13. On similar facts, the Coordinate Jodhpur Bench in the case of ITO v/s Subhash Synthetics reported in 259 ITR 78(AT) held as under: - "Income-Addition-Low net profit rate-AO applied net profit rate of 2.67 per cent on the basis of information collected from Central excise department as against 0.74 per cent declared by assessee-manufacturer

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

3. Now the assessee is in appeal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 5. However, it is seen that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various orders of the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Sr. DR has supported the orders of the NFAC but has fairly accepted that there

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

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

13,000/- made\nby the AO in AY 2019-20, but was of the view that silver found and seized from\nthe lockers had been acquired during two financial years and should have been\ntaxed in those years, and he, accordingly issued notices for enhancement for AY\n2014-15 and AY 2016-17.Simultaneously, he enhanced the income for both these\nAYs

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

3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken

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

3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken

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

3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken

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

3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

13,000/- made\nby the AO in AY 2019-20, but was of the view that silver found and seized from\nthe lockers had been acquired during two financial years and should have been\ntaxed in those years, and he, accordingly issued notices for enhancement for AY\n2014-15 and AY 2016-17.Simultaneously, he enhanced the income for both these\nAYs

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a labour contractor. The return of income for assessment year 2018-19 was filed declaring income of Rs. 4,54,500/-. This return of income was processed by CPC, Banglore and the income was assessed at Rs. 8,63,200/- by making an adjustment in respect of EPF/ESIC

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a labour contractor. The return of income for assessment year 2018-19 was filed declaring income of Rs. 4,54,500/-. This return of income was processed by CPC, Banglore and the income was assessed at Rs. 8,63,200/- by making an adjustment in respect of EPF/ESIC