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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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