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

24)(x) of the Act. In accordance with the statutory provision, the departmental authorities have made the disallowances. 7. The assessee has contested the disallowance broadly on the following grounds: • In the tax audit report, the auditor has only mentioned the details of contribution received from employees for various as to attract adjustment under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. The FAO passed

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A of the I T Act for disallowance of expenses related to investments which may be in the form of dividend on shares. 2. Disallowance of employee’s contributions to provident fund u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24

SHRI SIDDHESH KUMAR GAUR ,JODHPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, ACIT, CIRCLE-3, BENGALURU / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowance under section 40A(3) in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/ any of the grounds of appeal on or before date of hearing. 3. The issue of ESI/PF payment has attained finality by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs. I.T.A. No. 399/Jodh/2024 ACIT vs. Mukesh Shah 15 30,000/- made u/s 24(a) is deleted. In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the finding so recorded in the order of ld. CIT(A), revenue preferred the present appeal challenging the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on the grounds

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)

disallowance was purely technical in nature and not on the merits of the exemption claim. He pointed out that Form 10B had been uploaded by the auditor within time and that the delay was only in verification, which was cured before the return was processed. It was contended that the audit report was very much available on record before

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

24,592/-made on account of disallowance of\ndeduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by\nholding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming\n2\nITA No. 541,544and 545/Jodh/2024\n(Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2018-19)\ndeduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

24,592/-made on account of disallowance of\ndeduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by\nholding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming\ndeduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed\nto comply with statutory requirement of provision of section

SRM SPINNERS LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotesrm Spinners Ltd., Vs. Cit(A) / Nfac Sukh Shanti, Sukh Delhi-110002. Shanti, Sabun Marg, Bhilwara – 311001, Rajasthan, Pan/Gir No. : Aascs1833L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit – Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 2(24)(x) is found to be valid and proper in fact and law. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance

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)

disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. While deciding Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 593/Jodh/2014 in earlier part of the order qua ground No. 4, we have already decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Following our decision therein, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s claim of additional depreciation. Ground

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)

disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. While deciding Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 593/Jodh/2014 in earlier part of the order qua ground No. 4, we have already decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Following our decision therein, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s claim of additional depreciation. Ground

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)

disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. While deciding Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 593/Jodh/2014 in earlier part of the order qua ground No. 4, we have already decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Following our decision therein, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s claim of additional depreciation. Ground

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)

disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. While deciding Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 593/Jodh/2014 in earlier part of the order qua ground No. 4, we have already decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Following our decision therein, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s claim of additional depreciation. Ground

M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, 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)

disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. While deciding Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 593/Jodh/2014 in earlier part of the order qua ground No. 4, we have already decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Following our decision therein, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s claim of additional depreciation. Ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

24,592/-made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with statutory requirement of provision of section

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

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

24 Swajan Pariwar Trust vs. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of Tribunal that where the trust filed the audit ADIT(E) (1997) 57 TTJ report along with a rectification application under (Mum) (SMC) 77, section 154, it was entitled to the exemption, as the Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti vs. ITO(E) defect

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

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

24 Swajan Pariwar Trust vs. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of Tribunal that where the trust filed the audit ADIT(E) (1997) 57 TTJ report along with a rectification application under (Mum) (SMC) 77, section 154, it was entitled to the exemption, as the Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti vs. ITO(E) defect

DCIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN GOYAL, FARIDABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotedcit Vs. Shri Brij Bhushan Circle, Pali., Goyal, Jodhpur. House No. 331, Sector Rajasthan. 16A, Faridabad, Haryana.-121002 Pan/Gir No. : Aawpg8405D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 80IC of the Act for the year under consideration was incorrectly disallowed by the AO, therefore, the same is hereby directed to be allowedThe appellant succeeds on this issue. The ground Nos.2 & 3 raised by the appellant regarding this issue stand allowed. Since, the AO in his order at Page No. 12 has also stated that if the relief

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

section 263(2), the notice issued on 30-4- 2009 was barred by limitation. 6.4 In Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2021) 90 ITR TRIB (Trib) 554 (Mum), it was held that: 23 | P a g e "10. A perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under s. 147 of the Act, as reproduced in the body