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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 2(24)(x) of the IT. Act, 1961. It was categorically observed by the undersigned that during the assessment proceedings the FAO neither made any query in this regard nor examined the case of disallowance of Rs. 15

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

disallowances made are beyond the scope and ambit of adjustment provided under section 143(1)(a) while processing the returns of income. • At the time of filing of returns of income by the assessee for the respective assessment years, the law prevailing on the said date allowed the assessee to claim deduction of employees’ contribution

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

disallowances made are beyond the scope and ambit of adjustment provided under section 143(1)(a) while processing the returns of income. • At the time of filing of returns of income by the assessee for the respective assessment years, the law prevailing on the said date allowed the assessee to claim deduction of employees’ contribution

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)

Disallowance on account non 7,58,076/- commencement of business activity treating the same as capital expenditure 3 Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) entire share 51,00,000/- capital and Share Premium Amount Total Addition 58,58,076/- Total Income 51,00,000/- 5. Being aggrieved, appellant filed first appeal before CIT A-1, Udaipur (Raj) which was later

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

15 question no 20 & 21 of the paper book page where in the notice dated 24.11.2019 continued and ld. AO continued raised the following questions: 20. lt is noticed that assessee had paid huge interest on one side whereas provided interest free loans to sister concern/has outstanding balances with sister concern (interest free)' Show cause why provisions of section

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

disallowed. The assessee has filed its return of income belatedly on 29.03.2016 and Form 10 on 10.05.2017. It means assessee has filed Form 10 after the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and not as per the date prescribed by the income Tax act and Rules 5.5 Rule 17(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 says

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

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.

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act and brought to tax the excess of income of over expenditure at MMR rate for reasons discussed above. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 3. Being not satisfied with the order

M/S. BHARAT CERA GLASS LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Income Tax Officer, 1-B-24, Shashtri Nagar, Vs Ward-3, Bhilwara Bhilwara Pan: Aaecb4366K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 56(2)(viib) is upheld. Ground No. A 11. The Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs. 45,000/- which was 15

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. VIDYA BHAWAN SOCIETY, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradacit, Vs M/S. Vidya Bhawan Circle (Exemption), Society, Mohan Singh, Jodhpur Mehta Marg, Fatehpur, Udaipur (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Udaipur Dated 27.06.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

2,96,322/- 4.2. Prior Period Expenses:- In the Income & Expenditure account the assessee has claimed Rs. 10,84,776/- as prior period expenses. As this expenses is not pertains to the 12 | P a g e AY 2014-15 therefore the same cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure for the A.Y. 2014-15 and accordingly made addition of Rs.10

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of share premium worth Rs.171,22,500/- The appellant has issued on premium of Rs.90 per share. During the year, aggregate consideration received for such share was of Rs.19,02,500/- and share premium of Rs.1,71.22,500/-. The Assessing Officer as per section 56(2)(viib) held that aggregate consideration received for such share as exceeds the fair

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of share premium worth Rs.171,22,500/- The appellant has issued on premium of Rs.90 per share. During the year, aggregate consideration received for such share was of Rs.19,02,500/- and share premium of Rs.1,71.22,500/-. The Assessing Officer as per section 56(2)(viib) held that aggregate consideration received for such share as exceeds the fair

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

15,00,000/- against disallowance of Rs. 42,34,358/- out of various expenses made by the AO in absence of verification. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in holding the activity of ready mix concrete to be manufacturing and hence allowing additional depreciation

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed