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

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

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

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return: Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or in electronic mode: Provided further that

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. This amendment has been 4 M/s Dhaban Gram

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

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nBy Oder\nAssistant Registrar,\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,\nJodhpur Bench,\nJodhpur.", "summary": { "facts": "The revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) which deleted additions made on account of disallowance of deductions under Section 35AD and disallowance of discount expenses. The primary dispute revolves around the timely filing of the audit

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;\n(b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately\npreceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such\nsearch is conducted or requisition is made :\nProvided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income\nin respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years:\nProvided further that

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

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

139(1). 5.4 Therefore in terms of the first proviso below section 40(a)(ia), deduction is allowable in the previous year in which TDS is deducted and paid, i.e in the Previous Year 2014-15, relevant to AY 2015-16. Thus, so far as the AY 2014-15, under consideration, is concerned, the 3 Mohan Lal Menaria [A] amount

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

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

139/- 7.8 However, the assessee has not disclosed the details of share of profit received from the partnership firm, which is otherwise exempt from tax in the hands of the assessee u/s. 10(2A) of the Act. Also, the assessee has not fumished the details of income received from the partnership firm which is included in the income disclosed under

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 are applicable from the Assessment Year 2021- 22 and onwards

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

5. Considering this genuine hardship faced by large number of assesses, CBDT has issued a circular F. No. 173/193/2019 ITA I dated 23rd April, 2019 with the clarification with regard to time allowed for filing that return of income subsequent to the insertion of Clause (ba) in Sub Section 1 of Section 12A of Income

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

5. Considering this genuine hardship faced by large number of assesses, CBDT has issued a circular F. No. 173/193/2019 ITA I dated 23rd April, 2019 with the clarification with regard to time allowed for filing that return of income subsequent to the insertion of Clause (ba) in Sub Section 1 of Section 12A of Income

M/S. KHADI GRAMMODHYOG PRATISTHAN,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(2), BANGALURU / BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

139(1) of the Act was 30.03.2019. Hence there is no infirmity in the order passed by the AO (CPC). The appeal is therefore dismissed.” 5. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which is extracted in below; “With reference to the above, it is submitted that the order passed by the assessing

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(9) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in by ignoring the fact that the assessee-trust could not upload Form-10 and Form-10B online due to technical issues and glitches

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(9) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in by ignoring the fact that the assessee-trust could not upload Form-10 and Form-10B online due to technical issues and glitches

GAJESINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.64/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act whereas the SCN under Section 263 was regarding the FIFO method of valuation of closing stock adopted by the Assessee. These were, as rightly noted by the ITAT, unconnected issues and the assessment order could not have been held to be “erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue” when

MAHENDRA SINGH DHARAMPAL & CO.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blemahendra Singh Dharampal & Acit Circle 2, Co Udaipur - 313001 15-18, Diamond Plazza, Hiran Magri Sect 5, Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aadfm 9764 A Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Revenue By Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Udaipur Dated 19.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 1,54,500/- Levied U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ao.

disallowance remuneration of partners, the loss is reduced. Accordingly, he has held that it was a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of loss in confirming the penalty. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assesses has filed its original return of income u/s 139(4) on 31st March, 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 79,24,080/- and subsequently