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 of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139

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 of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of deduction claimed under 98[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139

DHABAN GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITY,SANGARIA vs. ITO WARD 1 , HANUMANGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on\n31.07.2014 for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs.\n7,50,190/-. A search under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out by the\nInvestigation Wing of the Income Tax Department at the business/residential\npremises of Pali based Golecha Group consisting of Shri Raj Kumar

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

section 139. With the above\nreasoning, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in assuming that in re-\nassessment cases u/s 148, the assessee gets extended time limit for\ncompliance of statutory requirements under IT Act 1961 which are\notherwise barred by limitation.\n5. Whether the Id. CIT(A) is justified in law and facts in deleting the\naddition

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

disallowance of discount expenses was not justified, considering the initial years of operation and the nature of the business. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that income from other sources related to the specified business could be set off against the business loss.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "35AD", "80-IA", "148", "139

MOHAN LAL MENARIA ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed the said amount under section 2 Mohan Lal Menaria [A] 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) in para 5.1 to 5.5 held as under : “5.1 In terms of the second proviso below section 40(a)(ia), inserted w.e.f 1.04.2013, it shall

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

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

disallowance made in order u/s 143(1), by the ld. AO is bad in law and bad on facts, and such adjustment made was not justified u/s 143(1), as was not an apparent addition. b. The addition was not an apparent mistake of fact or law and even after the order of the ld. AO has directed to collect

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

139(1) and when the same has been held allowable by the honorable jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan and honorable ITAT. Jodhpur Bench and the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 making amendments U/s 36(1)(va) and section 43(b) of The Income Tax Act for such disallowances

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. With the above reasoning, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in assuming that in re- assessment cases u/s 148, the assessee gets extended time limit for compliance of statutory requirements under IT Act 1961 which are otherwise barred by limitation. 5. Whether the Id. CIT(A) is justified in law and facts in deleting the addition

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

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

disallowance of expenditure were made without providing the opportunity for removing the defect as per provisions of explanation (e) to section 139

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

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

disallowance of expenditure were made without providing the opportunity for removing the defect as per provisions of explanation (e) to section 139

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

disallowed. The assessee has filed its return of income belatedly on 29.03.2016 and Form 10 on 10.05.2017. It means assessee has filed Form 10 after the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and not as per the date prescribed by the income Tax act and Rules 5.5 Rule 17(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 says

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing