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

178, the first appellate authority upheld the disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 4. At the time of hearing, in addition to the submissions made orally, learned counsel appearing for the assessee has also furnished submissions in writing, which are as under : “Submission:- Adjustment cannot be made under section

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)

178 Taxman 422/317 ITR 249 (Delhi) and where the Court had observed:- "8. In view of this long line of decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing

BABA BEARINGS PVT LTD,BORANADA vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

disallowed the amount of Rs.3,08,878/- because of not timely deposit of the employees contribution of PF and ESI under respective laws which in first appeal was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) holding as under:- ‘’5.2 Since the law now clearly states that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and was deemed never to apply

DURGA PUROHIT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

disallowance made by the AO of Rs.2,23,895/- being contributions to PF. 3 DURGA PUROHIT VS ITO, WARD 2 (1), UDAIPUR 2.2 After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, it is noticed that the AO made the addition of Rs.2.23.895/- on account of late deposit of PF & ESI contribution of the employee

ROSHAN LAL BOHRA,PALI vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-2, PALI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) by the AO is confirmed. The assessee fails on this ground. ROSHAN LAL BOHRA VS. ITO, WARD 2, PALI 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR prayed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,72,029/- in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESI which should

CENTRAL 4 SECURE SOLUTIONS,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Central 4 Secure Solutions Vs The Ito Udiapur Ward-1, Udaipur

disallowance of Rs.2,62,389/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIR(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.2,62,389/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2.4 During the course

AZIZ KHAN,ABU ROAD vs. ITO, ABU

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Aziz Khan Vs The Ito Abu Road Abu

disallowance of Rs.8,14,651/- is upheld. Thus this ground of appeal is dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). 4.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) 4.4 After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, it is noticed that the AO made an addition

ANAND SWAROOP MENAWAT,JODHPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURUE / ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is hereby confirmed. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant are hereby dismissed.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR prayed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,03,072/- in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESI which should be deleted

SHANTI LAL DEORA,SUMERPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Shri Shanti Laldeora, Vs. A.C.I.T., Hotel Inder Palace, Bhagat Circle- Pali Singh Circle, Sumerpur, Dist.- Pali-306902 (Raj.) Pan No. Adhpd 4172 A Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. & Shrimohitsoni, Adv. Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08/09/2021

disallowance of deduction U/s 54F ignoring the fact that the appellate has invested the consideration received by him in construction and has rightly claimed deduction under Section 54F of the Act as per law. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT-1, Jodhpur grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction by issuing direction

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowing the legal and legitimate claim of the appellant solely on the ground that the claim was made during the assessment proceedings i.e. Acquisition of Fixed Assets, Purchase of Books and Periodicals and Payment of endowment fund to university of. This approach is arbitrary, unjustified, and against the principles of natural justice. The circular specifically emphasizes the duty

THE NAGAUR CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WAD-1, NAGAUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 03.02.2021 passed by 2 The Nagaur Central Co-op Bank Ltd., Nagaur- AY: 2018-19 the AO, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (NeAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on 2. behalf

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

section 145 are not found to\nbe relevant in the facts of this case. The AO has not disturbed the book results as the cash\ntransactions are not part of regular books of accounts.\nThe ld CIT(A) has also tried to distinguish the decisions relied upon. Thus on the\nbasis of above observations the ld. CIT(A) confirmed