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

disallowances made are beyond the scope and ambit of adjustment provided under section 143(1)(a) while processing the returns of income. • At the time of filing of returns of income by the assessee for the respective assessment years, the law prevailing on the said date allowed the assessee to claim deduction of employees’ contribution

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1). The Finance Act, 2006 has introduced w.e.f. 1.4.2007, sub section (2) and sub section (3) of section 14A. The sub section (2) of Section 14A basically lays down the manner in which the disallowance u/s 14A has to be calculated, read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962 Further, sub section (3) of Section 14A only clarifies that

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines of the RBI, but the allowably of such provisions

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines of the RBI, but the allowably of such provisions

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines of the RBI, but the allowably of such provisions

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines of the RBI, but the allowably of such provisions

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines of the RBI, but the allowably of such provisions

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines of the RBI, but the allowably of such provisions

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

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

section 143(1)(a), your honor will observe that there is no clause (provision) which empowers Ld. A.O. to 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

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

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

section 143(1)(a), your honor will observe that there is no clause (provision) which empowers Ld. A.O. to 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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

23-4-2019 has clarified with regard to the time allowed for filing of the return of income subsequent to the insertion of clause (ba) in sub section (1) of section 12A of the IT Act which includes the IT return filed within the time allowed u/s. 139 of the Act. Notably, the Delhi ITAT in the case of Conference

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)

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, disallowing the exemption claimed under section 11, has been upheld. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, a public charitable trust registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2022–23

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the legality & validity of order passed by the Ld AO. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the apparent & real facts of the case in right

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

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

23 of the CIT(A) order.\nHence, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have confined enhancement only in the years where the subject\nmatter or related issue involved in those year before him not of the other years i.ePower of\nenhancement conferred on CIT(A) can be exercised only on the issue which is the subject matter\nof the assessment

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

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

23 of the CIT(A) order.\nHence, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have confined enhancement only in the years where the subject\nmatter or related issue involved in those year before him not of the other years i.ePower of\nenhancement conferred on CIT(A) can be exercised only on the issue which is the subject matter\nof the assessment

M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

23. The only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal relates to disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1

ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P. LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

23. The only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal relates to disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1

ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P.LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

23. The only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal relates to disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1