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. Accordingly, the subjected assessment

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. 2,47,29,991/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. 2,47,29,991/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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 of Rs. 2,47,29,991/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. 2,47,29,991/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. 2,47,29,991/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

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. 2,47,29,991/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SUNCITY METALS AND TUBES PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

2) and relying on Section 49(1)(e). However, the court emphasized that Section 47 excludes the transfer of a capital asset in an approved scheme of amalgamation. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court allowed the depreciation on goodwill created due to the amalgamation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the Ld. AO's action in not rectifying the mistake as adjustments were made beyond the A.O. jurisdiction/ powers provided under clause (i) to (vi) of section 143(1)(a). 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the fact that disallowance of expenditure were made without

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the Ld. AO's action in not rectifying the mistake as adjustments were made beyond the A.O. jurisdiction/ powers provided under clause (i) to (vi) of section 143(1)(a). 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the fact that disallowance of expenditure were made without

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

NAVAL KISHORE DAGA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed wherein Interest Income is more than expenses or Appellant is having sufficient Interest Free Fund or owned Funds: 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Rajendra Prasad Moody 115 ITR 519 (SC) COME 2. Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of CIT Vs Gopikrishan Murlidhar, 47 ITR 469 (AP) We would like to submit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

Section) New Delhi." 2. The sole issue challenged by the revenue is that the CIT (A)/NFAC was not justified in treatment of the income from the sale of immovable properties as capital gains instead of business income and directing the AO to examine the eligibility of exemption u/s 54F/54EC before giving the order appeal effect. 3. Briefly the fact

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance is called for. 6.1 Learned counsel pointed to the sharp decline in the business of the assessee by submitting that the turnover of the assessee in assessment year 2011-12 was at Rs.239.85 crores which came down to Rs.25.55 crores in the years under consideration. According to him, this decline at 1/10th of the turnover in assessment year

SH. MAHENDRA SINGH,FLAT NO.303, ASHAPURA TOWER, PAOTA, JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaishri Mahendra Singh Vs Theacit Flat No. 303, Ashapura Tower Circle-3 Paota, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Csdps 5573B

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. I do not find any reason whatsoever in nature to interfere with the observation and findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer in regard to the disallowance of Interest expenditure u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs. 1,18,90,400/-.No interference in AO's Order is called for. The addition

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

47 and also by various other courts. (ix) It is also well settled position of law that tax can be levied only on the net income/profits and not on gross receipts for which reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat vs. S.C. Kothari (1971) 82 ITR 794 wherein

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

47 and also by various other courts. (ix) It is also well settled position of law that tax can be levied only on the net income/profits and not on gross receipts for which reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat vs. S.C. Kothari (1971) 82 ITR 794 wherein

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

47 and also by various other courts. (ix) It is also well settled position of law that tax can be levied only on the net income/profits and not on gross receipts for which reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat vs. S.C. Kothari (1971) 82 ITR 794 wherein

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

47 and also by various other courts. (ix) It is also well settled position of law that tax can be levied only on the net income/profits and not on gross receipts for which reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat vs. S.C. Kothari (1971) 82 ITR 794 wherein