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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. REVISION OF ORDER UNDER 263 WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 14A 9.1. Main operating portion is sub-section (1) of Section 14A and the subsequent amendments has not changed the wordings of sub section (1). The Finance Act, 2006 has introduced w.e.f. 1.4.2007, sub section (2) and sub section (3) of section 14A. The sub section (2) of Section

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

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

13(8)(effective from 01.04.2009) read with first and second proviso of section 2(15). However, on review of the said assessment order and records, for the relevant year, it was found 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

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

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

9. It is also submitted that section 36(1) of the Act which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28. Clause (va) of said section reads as under:- “(va) any sum received 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

9. It is also submitted that section 36(1) of the Act which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28. Clause (va) of said section reads as under:- “(va) any sum received by the assessee

U AND T TRACTOR SPARES PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

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

9. It was submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has however sustained the disallowance made by the CPC while processing the return relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi, Kerala and Madras High Courts and ignoring the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court referred supra. 10. It was submitted that recently, a similar matter came before

COUNTRY ART AND CRAFT LLP,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Hyderabad ‘SMC” Bench in ITA No. 644/Hyd./2020 for the AY 2019-20 in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Ltd, Hyderabad vs ITO vide orderdt 15.6.2021. The relevant findings given in para 2 of the said order read as under:- “2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance

MANIBHADRA UDHYOG,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2017-18 Manibhadra Udhyog, Vs. The Dcit, Pali Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aagfm4258G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2021 आदेश/Order

disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 9. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material

ARPIT GULECHA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR , JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Hyderabad ‘SMC” Bench in ITA No. 644/Hyd./2020 for the AY 2019-20 in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Ltd, Hyderabad vs ITO vide order dt 15.6.2021. The relevant findings given in para 2 of the said order read as under:- “2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF

PREM KISHORE AGARWAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Hyderabad ‘SMC” Bench in ITA No. 644/Hyd./2020 for the AY 2019-20 in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Ltd, Hyderabad vs ITO vide order dt 15.6.2021. The relevant findings given in para 2 of the said order read as under:- “2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF

HISTORIC RESORT HOTELS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return.

9. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Hyderabad ‘SMC” Bench in ITA No. 644/Hyd./2020 for the AY 2019-20 in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Ltd, Hyderabad vs ITO vide order dt 15.6.2021. The relevant findings given in para 2 of the said order read as under:- “2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF

ZEPHYRSUN ELECTRO MECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAISALMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Hyderabad ‘SMC” Bench in ITA No. 644/Hyd./2020 for the AY 2019-20 in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Ltd, Hyderabad vs ITO vide orderdt 15.6.2021. The relevant findings given in para 2 of the said order read as under:- “2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance

BIKANER CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Return. The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Jurisdictional High Court Decision. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.

9. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Hyderabad ‘SMC” Bench in ITA No. 644/Hyd./2020 for the AY 2019-20 in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Ltd, Hyderabad vs ITO vide order dt 15.6.2021. The relevant findings given in para 2 of the said order read as under:- “2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF

BIKANER CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosianmohangarh Engineers & Vs The Dcit, Construction Company Circle -1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aanfm4741R

disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material

MOHANGARH ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosianmohangarh Engineers & Vs The Dcit, Construction Company Circle -1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aanfm4741R

disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- “13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material

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