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 does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

disallowing the amount of Rs. 68,62,780, i.e. the income which has escaped assessment as per the reasons recorded. Neither the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment nor any other material on record demonstrate that the issue relating to the claim of deduction under s.801A of the Act was ever a subject matter of dispute in the re-assessment

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

disallowance of Rs. 32,38,02,815/-being non genuine expenses and accordingly whether the Id. CIT(A) is justified in relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT and High Court in the case of assesse for earlier assessment year when the facts of the case are distinguishable. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case

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

section 11 and 12 shall apply to the case of the assessee Accordingly no exemption is granted u/s 11(2) of the IT Act for the year under consideration In result the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before ld. NFAC/ CIT(A). The present appeal filed

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

197 of the IT Act. Further the Chartered Accountant has given tax audit report in which he has reported the disallowance on account of non deduction of tax at source at nil. It is therefore sincerely requested that the order passed by the Id. Pr. CET is illegal and may kindly be quashed. Issue 6 A file containing 102 pages

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the IT. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2016-17 and action w/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A required to be initiated in this case. Therefore, notices U/s 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 are being issued in this case. 7. Assessment years involved

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. ANJANA CONSTRUCTION, CHITTORGARH

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the IT. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2016-17 and action w/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A required to be initiated in this case. Therefore, notices U/s 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 are being issued in this case. 7. Assessment years involved

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the IT. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2016-17 and action w/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A required to be initiated in this case. Therefore, notices U/s 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 are being issued in this case. 7. Assessment years involved

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