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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

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

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

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

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

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

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

201 (SC) . The Bench of three learned judges in Nagpur Hotel Owners' Assn. (supra) rendered the following pertinent observations:- "6. It is abundantly clear from the wordings of sub-section (2) of Section 11 that it is mandatory for the person claiming the benefit of Section 11 to intimate to the assessing authority the particulars required, under Rule

SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA,BARMER vs. ITO,WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

201 before the AO. When no such certificate was produced, the appellant cannot take a plea that the AO should not have disallowed the said sum u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that Rajasthan State warehousing Corp filed return showing the rent received. So, on facts and as per record, there was a clear case for disallowance

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing exemption claimed under section 11 which resulted in a demand to be payable by the taxpayer amount of Rs. 13489828. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that appellant is registered u/s. 12A and 80G by the Commissioner as it is engaged in imparting education and running various education institutions. The appellant had not filed return

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

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

disallow the expenditures if no Audit Report in Form 10B is uploaded online and therefore, the Adjustment of Rs. 1,05,26,665/- is beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the Ld. A.O. u/s 143(1)(a). Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti vs. ITO(E) 3. Ground No. 2 : FORM 10B COULD NOT UPLOADED DUE TO TECHNICALGLITCHES

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

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

disallow the expenditures if no Audit Report in Form 10B is uploaded online and therefore, the Adjustment of Rs. 1,05,26,665/- is beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the Ld. A.O. u/s 143(1)(a). Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti vs. ITO(E) 3. Ground No. 2 : FORM 10B COULD NOT UPLOADED DUE TO TECHNICALGLITCHES

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

disallowance of Rs. 32,38,02,815/-being non genuine expenses and accordingly whether the Id. CIT(A) is justified in relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT and High Court in the case of assesse for earlier assessment year when the facts of the case are distinguishable. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowing the legal and legitimate claim of the appellant solely on the ground that the claim was made during the assessment proceedings i.e. Acquisition of Fixed Assets, Purchase of Books and Periodicals and Payment of endowment fund to university of. This approach is arbitrary, unjustified, and against the principles of natural justice. The circular specifically emphasizes the duty

ITO, WARD-1, CHITTORGARH , CHITTORGARH vs. M/S. C.K. MOTORS , CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad118/Jodh/2020 (Assessment Year- 2012-13) The Ito Vs M/S. C.K. Motors Ward-1 10A, Old Indusrial Chittorgarh Area, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aadfc 8845 L

section 40(a)(ia) is applicable prospectively w.e.f. 01- 04-2013 and therefore, the same is not applicable for the A.Y. 2012-13.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, the DR relied upon the order of the AO. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

201 days. So, that proper inquiry can be\nconducted and substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant.\nThe assessee prays accordingly.\nThanking You Yours\nFaithfully,\n(Sd/-)\n(Bhoop Singh Poonia)\nAppellant\nEnclosed:\nAffidavit dated 06.03.2025.\n3. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone\nthrough the record carefully. In the light of above, if we\nperuse