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 section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act the issue was covered based on the jurisdictional high court decision and therefore, the issue was debatable and law does not permit the review of each every order after the same is considered and decided based

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. To that extent, the issue stands squarely settled by the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (supra). 12. Now reverting back to the contention of the assessee that the adjustment made is not within the scope and ambit of 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. To that extent, the issue stands squarely settled by the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (supra). 12. Now reverting back to the contention of the assessee that the adjustment made is not within the scope and ambit of 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

disallow the claimed capital expenditure of Rs.5,25,52,586/-. Since, the assessee was hit by provision of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the total taxable income comes to Rs.6,71,88,566/- (Rs.1,46,35,981/- + Rs.5,25,52,586/-), therefore, the assessment done at NIL income by the AO is erroneous as the final computation

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)

disallowances. Thereafter, a notice u/s 263 notice was received by the assessee from the ld PCIT, Udaipur stating that the report required for this purpose should be from the FCA i.e. the fellow member of the ICAI whereas the report in question was obtained from an associate member of the ICAI. As this point was ignored

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,82,19,101/- (As per Annexure -6)and the same has also been invested out of current year’s internal accretion of operating profit of Rs.14,78,17,117/- (as per statement of P & L of the assessee company for the FY 2016-17 attached as Annexure 7). Since the investment directly attributable to current year’s profit

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

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54F by the assessee as there was no addition on the ground as recorded in reasons to believe u/s 148. The Ld. CIT(A) order is against the binding judicial precedents of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Sh. Ram Singh (306 ITR 343) & CIT v/s Dr. Devendra Gupta (336 ITR 59) 4.That

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(19

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:-

section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. He therefore, treated the surplus amounting to INR 2,11,32,268/- as business income and further made addition on account of disallowance on loss of sale of fixed asset of INR 2,96,322/-, disallowance on prior period expenses of INR 10,84,776/- and gratuity expenses of INR 19

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 17 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. made invoking provisions of rule 8D may kindly be deleted as Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08. 11. For the purposes of computing the total income under section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

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 17 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. made invoking provisions of rule 8D may kindly be deleted as Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08. 11. For the purposes of computing the total income under section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

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

Disallowance 17 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. made invoking provisions of rule 8D may kindly be deleted as Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08. 11. For the purposes of computing the total income under section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

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 17 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. made invoking provisions of rule 8D may kindly be deleted as Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08. 11. For the purposes of computing the total income under section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

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 17 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. made invoking provisions of rule 8D may kindly be deleted as Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08. 11. For the purposes of computing the total income under section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

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 17 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. made invoking provisions of rule 8D may kindly be deleted as Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08. 11. For the purposes of computing the total income under section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

19,463 Receipts from trust 2,029 2,87,21,492 Application of Fund Expenses of school (before depreciation) 2,48,96,123 Expenses of trust (before depreciation) 33,42,711 Capital Expenses 1,84,965 2,84,23,799 Net Surplus 2,97,693 3. The AO(CPC) while processing the return did not allow the revenue expenditure

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.”

19. In plain terms, section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustments, which are, as noted earlier, arithmetical or prima facie in nature. With effect from 01.06.2015, this provision specifically provides for computing the fee payable under section 234E

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed to the extent, vide rectification u/s 154. (3) Alternatively: how assessment completed u/s 143 (3), proceeding u/s 154 is not amenable? Copy of reply dated 04/05/2018 attached at Pg No 54 to 97. Yet the Ld. AO did not consider without considering case laws furnished. In first appeal, it has been argued on similar line like:  Provision of section

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

19 of the assessment order\nthrough which assessee explained the things and confusion in the mind of the AO.\nBut AO did not find satisfy with the reply of the assessee. He was of the view that\nthe Unbilled sales is unaccounted sales of the assessee which is supported by\nseized material as against the contention that it has recognized