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

2. The only common dispute arising in these appeals relates to disallowance of deduction claimed on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund(PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI), while processing the returns of income under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a partnership firm

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

2. The only common dispute arising in these appeals relates to disallowance of deduction claimed on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund(PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI), while processing the returns of income under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a partnership firm

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 and due to incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts, the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore

PATEL MINERALS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 56. The confirmation of addition is made without following provisions of law. Hence the addition of Rs. 51,00,000/- is bad in law and be deleted. 2. That appellant reserves his right to add or amend grounds of appeal.” 2 Patel Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Company

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2(24)(x) after the prescribed time under relevant PF Act. Submissions (1) Disallowance under section 14A of the I T Act: (i) With regard to your honor’s invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, we humbly submit that your honor has duly accepted and stated that AO has made a query with reference to section

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

2. Without Prejudice to above- That on the facts & circumstances of the case as well as in the law the proceeding initiated under section 147 read with section 148 is bad in law having regard to the facts of the case, written submission and position of law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the addition

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

142(1) on 11.07.2017 asking to the assesses to file the details and\nexplanations on the ITR and seized documents, which was replied.\nIn Assessment, AO has noted that during the course of search proceeding u/s\n132 on 26.08.2015 a hard disc was seized (Annexure-AS-5) from the residence of\nShanti Lal Maroo group Udaipur. A working copy

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., BHILWARA

In the result the ground No

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, ACIT vs. M/s Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 1961, as the Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank Ltd. is not registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 or under any other law for registration of co-operative societies, as provided u/s. 2

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

142(1)\nof the Act. In response, the assessee filed reply dated 17.03.2022 through faceless\nproceedings. The reply of the assessee was considered but the AO could not find it\nacceptable. Thus, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment proceedings.\nThe AO observed that since, the assessee has not shown LTCG or STCG in\nher

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed wherein Interest Income is more than expenses or Appellant is having sufficient Interest Free Fund or owned Funds: 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Rajendra Prasad Moody 115 ITR 519 (SC) COME 2. Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of CIT Vs Gopikrishan Murlidhar, 47 ITR 469 (AP) We would like to submit

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

2) along with notice under Section 142(1) dated 03.10.2017 which were served on the assessee. Copy of 3 DCIT vs. U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur- AY: 2013-14 reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148 was also supplied to the assessee. Learned Assessing Officer also noted the facts about accounts of the assessee not audited and hence details

SHREE RAM COLLOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(1), JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

142 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue for the ground that the assessee has produced all the relevant documents before the Ld.AO and the Ld.AO had taken one possible view out of two and assumption of jurisdiction by Principal CIT under section 263 which is erroneous but High Court by the order held