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

v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 218/218 Taxman 112 (Mag.) (Delhi), wherein: "33. This decision in Alagendran Finance Ltd. (supra) has been followed by the Delhi High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra) wherein also reassessment order dealt with the issue of non-deduction of tax at source on payment of interest to ABN Amro Bank, Stockholm Branch. Second

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

v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.89,43,659/-.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 521/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)1, Jodhpur erred

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

v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.89,43,659/-.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 521/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)1, Jodhpur erred

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

v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.89,43,659/-.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 521/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)1, Jodhpur erred

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

v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.89,43,659/-.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 521/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)1, Jodhpur erred

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

v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.89,43,659/-.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 521/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)1, Jodhpur erred

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

v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.89,43,659/-.” Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 521/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)1, Jodhpur erred

ANIL KUMAR NUWAL,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainanil Kumar Nuwal, Vs A.C.I.T., 9, Main Sector, Shastri Circle- Bhilwara. Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan- 311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aavpn 4375 L

disallowance of claim of Rs. 1,04,59,000/- on account of deduction claimed U/s 54B of the Act. The submission in para a to e are factual in nature, hence no comments are offered. In para-f the assessee submitted that the land was used for agricultural activities and submitted copy of agricultural income certificate received from MRO office

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

M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

v. During the course of assessment proceeding the A.O. has accepted the claim of exempted income of handling and transportation only after detailed scrutiny of receipts and expenditure claimed their against. vi. Your honour has failed to consider that H.O. (Khara) has tractor shown in fixed assets schedule of which w.d.v. is Rs. 2,47,459.00 used for transportation

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

disallowed and added to the total income of assessee in the head of capital gain under short term capital gain for the relevant year." 14 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT However, after analyzing the order of assessment, the ld. PCIT directed that the sale of land be booked under the head Business and Profession rather than STCG

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

47,500/- Smt. Rukmani 20,00,000/- 1,77,540/- SSP traders 10,00,000/- 1,80,000/- Sahal commodities (P) Ltd 1,21,14,717/- 23,99,270/- Gujrat Agro Processors 2,82,994/- 50,940/- Baraja Kali Bhandar Contoi 2,85,721/- 51,440/- Total 58,36,270/- 5. The Ld. CIT(A) at Para

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

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

47,570/- has been created by the CPC by disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,05,26,665/- for not uploading Form-10B (Audit Report) online before the due date due to technical glitches and practical problems on the Income Tax Portal and It is impossible to pay such a huge demand by the assessee-trust which has been badly

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

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

47,570/- has been created by the CPC by disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,05,26,665/- for not uploading Form-10B (Audit Report) online before the due date due to technical glitches and practical problems on the Income Tax Portal and It is impossible to pay such a huge demand by the assessee-trust which has been badly

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of CIT Vs Gopikrishan Murlidhar, 47 ITR 469 (AP) We would like to submit that appellant is having following owned Capital and interest Free Loan as on 31.03.2017." Capital A/c 14458990.00 Unsecured Loan (interest free) Krishna Corporation 4059782.00 Shree Krishan Steel 2531993.50 Shikha Daga 460000.00 Nikhil Daga 50000.00 Krishna Daga

SH. HANUMAN PRASAD GOYAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, SURATGARH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavhanuman Prasad Goyal, Vs. I.T.O. Prop.-Goyal Enterprises, Ward-Suratgarh. Dhan Mandi, Gharsana. Pan No. Abvpg 7484 Q Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Adv. Revenue By Miss. Kajal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bikaner Dated 30/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2013-14, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By A.O. On Account Of Interest Paid To Creditors Rs. 8,89,780/-. It Was Having No Force Or Solid Base Hence It Should Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The It Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Grounds At Or Before Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

47,823 8,89,780 2. Interest Disallowed 62,996 3. Disallowed Expenses 21,913 4. Undeclared Interest 5. Addition on A/C of House Hold 1,05,979 60,28,491 Expenses TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME 63,83,081 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering

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

v) In the absence of any verifiable evidence, the figures mentioned in the seized\ndocuments are to be treated as actual figures. The appellant has not furnished any\nevidence before the AO in the form of any independent witness who can support the\narguments of the appellant. It is admitted fact that statement of Mr. Bharat Manwani\ncould

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

v) Since, in the seized documents in the "Total" column, gross receipts for FY 2011-12 are noted as Rs. 10,38,94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

v) Since, in the seized documents in the "Total" column, gross receipts for FY 2011-12 are noted as Rs. 10,38,94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts