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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

13,664/- in view of provision of section 80IA of the Act, disallowance of Rs. 51,58,174/- u/s. 14A of the act and disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of 7 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, due to lack of enquiry

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

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/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

8. The Finance Act, 2021 had introduced the following amendment by bringing in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act: “[Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date

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

8. The Finance Act, 2021 had introduced the following amendment by bringing in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act: “[Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date

SHREE TARAK GURU JAIN GRANTHALYA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU / ITO (EXEMPTION), UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

13(9) and Section 12A(1)(ba) is covering both the returns filed in which application of return is claimed. He further contended that before making such adjustments u/s 143(1)(a), no intimations have been issued to the assessee which was mandatory requirement of the law. In support he placed reliance on the following judgments as under

SHREE TARAK GURU JAIN GRANTHALYA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU / ITO (EXEMPTION), UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

13(9) and Section 12A(1)(ba) is covering both the returns filed in which application of return is claimed. He further contended that before making such adjustments u/s 143(1)(a), no intimations have been issued to the assessee which was mandatory requirement of the law. In support he placed reliance on the following judgments as under

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

13,832/-. 7.9 At this juncture, it is important to note that the expenditure claimed by the assessee towards income received from the partnership firm shall be apportioned pro-rata against the share of income and other income i.e., interest on capital/investment, remuneration/salary, etc. In this regard, reliance is placed on following case laws wherein it has been held that

UTTARAKHAND VIKAS SAMITI,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleuttarakhand Vikas Samiti Vs. Dcit, Cpc/Ito, Ward Exemption, 117, Main Road, Bhupalpura, Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aaatu 3935 G Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A) Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 24.01.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2018-19 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs. 6,00,000/- Without Appreciating Facts Of The Case.

disallowed the appellant’s claim for set apart of Rs. 6,00,000/- considering the fact that form 10 was filed belatedly. Asst. Year: 2017-18 3 5. The Ld. AR argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax, while interpreting such belated applications in form 9A and form no. 10 satisfied this that the assessee was apprehended by reasonable cause

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

8 M/s Shree Tirupati Associates O;kikj ls vk; 32506 tksMks vfHko`f) mijksDrkuqlkj 650000 dqy vk; 682506 :0 6]82]506@& ij dj fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k A vko’;d izi= tkjh fd;s tk;s rFkk iwoZ iznRr dj ;fn dksbZ gks rks mudk lek;kstu fd;k tk;s ,oa fu;ekuqlkj C;kt pktZ

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed to the extent, vide rectification u/s 154. (3) Alternatively: how assessment completed u/s 143 (3), proceeding u/s 154 is not amenable? Copy of reply dated 04/05/2018 attached at Pg No 54 to 97. Yet the Ld. AO did not consider without considering case laws furnished. In first appeal, it has been argued on similar line like:  Provision of section

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

disallowance of brought forward capital loss of Rs. 13,01,585/- and TDS Credit of Rs. 46,662/- in the computation of income. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused material on record. From the impugned order, it is seen that the learned JCIT (A) rejected the appeal qua the assessee by observing vide para5, as under

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

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

8 NAVBHARAT Bench find that the assessee has substantially CHARITABLE TRUST vs. satisfied all the conditions for availing the benefit INCOME TAX OFFICER of exemption under section 11/12 of the Act and (2023) 114 TLC 533 :(2023) except for filing audit report in Form 10B, which 150 taxmann.com 311 was filed belatedly, thus respectfully following the ITAT SURAT BENCH decision

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

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

8 NAVBHARAT Bench find that the assessee has substantially CHARITABLE TRUST vs. satisfied all the conditions for availing the benefit INCOME TAX OFFICER of exemption under section 11/12 of the Act and (2023) 114 TLC 533 :(2023) except for filing audit report in Form 10B, which 150 taxmann.com 311 was filed belatedly, thus respectfully following the ITAT SURAT BENCH decision

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

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

13,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act without going into factual matrix of the case. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,16,663/- out of interest expenses claimed from the rental income. 4. That the petitioner may kindly

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

13,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act without going into factual matrix of the case. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,16,663/- out of interest expenses claimed from the rental income. 4. That the petitioner may kindly

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)

8. In ground No.2, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of disallowance of deduction claimed towards belated payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI) amounting to Rs.41,165/-. 9. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee fairly conceded that now the issue stands squarely covered by the decision