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

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

139(4) of the Act, benefit of sections 11 and 12 cannot be denied to the assessee by invoking the provisions of clause (ba) to sub-sections (1) of section 12A of the Act. M/s Gangji Shamji Chedda (Princewala) Charitable Trust Vs. DCIT(E) ITA No.1528/M/2022 order dt. 31.10.2022 (Mum.) (Trib.) The relevant para 5 to 7 is reproduced

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

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

1) of section 12A section 44AB [section 44DA, section 50B). section 80-1A, section 80-1B, section 80-IC. section 80- ID section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E. [section 115JB or section 115VW] for to give a notice under Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically

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

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

1)(a). 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the fact that 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

1)(a). 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the fact that disallowance of expenditure were made without providing the opportunity for removing the defect as per provisions of explanation (e) to 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

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

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)

139(1). 28. In our considered opinion, an action for reassessment would have to be based on the formation of an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. That primordial condition would clearly not be satisfied on the mere allegation of a delayed digital filing of Form 10. 29. Quite apart from the above, we also bear

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

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

disallowance or addition and while doing so has under-assessed\nthe income of the assessee. In cases where the AO has not dealt with the issue at all\nand has not applied his mind on the taxability or non-taxability of a certain matter,\nthen the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to enhance under section 251(1) but should\nresort

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

1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person\nwhere a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other\ndocuments or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st\nday of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall—\n(a) issue

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

139(9) and has processed it by accepting the revenue and capital expenditure though denying the disputed exemption claimed by the assessee. 8. In our view, once the return has been processed as a valid return, the question arises whether disallowances made is permissible adjustment under Section 143(1

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

139(9) and has processed it by accepting the revenue and capital expenditure though denying the disputed exemption claimed by the assessee. 8. In our view, once the return has been processed as a valid return, the question arises whether disallowances made is permissible adjustment under Section 143(1

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

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

139(1) of the Act on\n01.10.2015declaringthe same total income, i.e. Rs.13,30,800/-.\n2.2\nLd. AO noted that during the course of search action u/s 132 of Act at the\nresidence of the assessee, a MIRAJ notebook was found and seized containing 18\nwritten pages which was inventorized as Exhibit-3 of Annexure-A. The assessee in\nhis statements

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

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

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", "32AB", "73A" ], "issues": "1

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

139.\nWith the above reasoning, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in assuming\nthat in re-assessment cases u/s 148, the assessee gets extended time limit\nfor compliance 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

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

disallowance\nunder Chapter-VI-A by taking view that no such deduction claimed in original return of income\nand no evidence to substantiate such deductions were filed—CIT(A) observed that pattern of\nwithdrawal support contention of assessee is that deposit in bank were pertaining to business of\nits scrap-Accordingly, accepted transaction—CIT(A) on basis of pattern