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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance u/s 14A has to be calculated, read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962 Further, sub section (3) of Section 14A only clarifies that even if the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to the exempt income then also, sub section (2

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(24)(x) of the Act. In accordance with the statutory provision, the departmental authorities have made the disallowances. 7. The assessee has contested the disallowance broadly on the following grounds: • In the tax audit report, the auditor has only mentioned the details of contribution received from employees for various as to attract adjustment under section

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(24)(x) of the Act. In accordance with the statutory provision, the departmental authorities have made the disallowances. 7. The assessee has contested the disallowance broadly on the following grounds: • In the tax audit report, the auditor has only mentioned the details of contribution received from employees for various as to attract adjustment under section

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

2(15). However, on review of the said assessment order and records, for the relevant year, it was found that though the AO has denied the benefits of Section 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee but at the same time, failed to tax the surplus income of Rs. 1,46,35,981/- and disallow

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

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)

disallowing the exemption claimed under section 11, has been upheld. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2 of section 263 of the Act and thus, it is nothing but a change of opinion In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the order of the PCIT is not in accordance with the provisions of section 263 of the Act and thus the same is quashed so far as on the issue of disallowance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. VIKRAM ANJANA, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosaindy. Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Vikram Anjana Income-Tax, Kesunda, Chhoti Central Circle-01, Udaipur Sadri, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afkpa 0575 R

2)(b) of the Act are not applicable as per the definition of the said section. The appellant pointed-out that similar disallowance

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

disallowed.(Para 5.3 of the order) (d) The assessee trust has contravened the provisions of section 11(2) of the IT Act and consequently

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA, SHASTRI NAGAR, BHILWARA vs. BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANG LIMITED, AJMER ROAD, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

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

section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative society agricultural land and rural development bank. Accordingly, the AO has disallowed exemption claimed u/s 80P (2

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

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

SHREE VISHWAKARMA SUTRADHAR SAMPATI TRUST,BIKANER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Hearing On The Case.

2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 24.9.2018 which stands served upon the assessee as per record. In response to the statutory notices, the assessee furnished written submissions and required information and documents through e-proceedings. Further, the ld. A/R of the assessee attended the proceedings and produced books of account consisting of cash book, ledger, donation receipts

PUSHAPRAJ KOTHARI,JASOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER, BARMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years : 2018-19 Puspapraj Kothari Vs. The Acit, Yashwal, Nakoda Road, Jasol, Barmer Circle, 344024 Barmer Pan No: Aaupk1365N Appellant Respondent

2. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section

MONA MARBLES PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

2. Since the issues involved are common in these appeals which were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

2. Since the issues involved are common in these appeals which were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section