MANOJ MAHAWAR HUF,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 10.06.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction Amounting To Rs.13,54,783/- Claimed U/S 80Jja Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.

disallowance of deduction amounting to Rs.13,54,783/- claimed u/s 80JJA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA 649/Jodh/2024 Α.Υ. 2015-16 2 3. In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of assessee. 4. With the assistance of ld. DR, we have gone through the record carefully. The assessee has filed

SHRI ROHIT YADAV,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Rohit Yadav, The Assistant S/O.Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav, V Commissioner Of Income Village – 2Ml, Nathwali, S Tax, Circle Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar – 335001. Pan: Bbspk6028C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

6) of the Act. However, assessee failed to file any reply. The AO after recording reasons, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The AO issued noticed under section 148 on 12.06.2013, which was duly served on assessee on 17.06.2013. The AO has discussed the addition of Rs.16,90,000/- + Rs.518 = Rs.16,90,518/- in paragraph

M/S. KHADI GRAMMODHYOG PRATISTHAN,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(2), BANGALURU / BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 250(6) of the Act, it is the duty of the Commissioner (Appeals) to state a point in dispute, record the reasons and pass a speaking order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 49% and Canara Bank v. V. K. Awasthy

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 of the Act, dated 29.07.2021 along- with a questionnaire as below, "1. You have claimed that you have paid interest of Rs 2,07,881/- Naval Kishore Daga vs. DCIT Please explain how the loan raised were utilised to earn the interest income which you have earned and therefore why deduction of such interest paid should be allowed

SHREE VISHWAKARMA SUTRADHAR SAMPATI TRUST,BIKANER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Hearing On The Case.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 17-18 is bad in law and on the facts. 2. The CIT (Appeal) has wrongly countenanced to the arbitrary finding recorded in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer in facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore computing the income of the trust at Rs. 1,92,751/- instead

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. RAVI INFRABUILD PROJECTS LIMITED, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2023-24, whereby relief was granted to the assessee in respect of the disallowance of TDS credit under section 143(1) by CPC, Bengaluru. 2. In the present appeal Revenue has raised sole ground which read as under: “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

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 hit during the covid (corono) period and facing genuine financial

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

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

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 hit during the covid (corono) period and facing genuine financial

C L TRADERS,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal filed by thassessee bearing

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2017-18, date of order 14/03/2024.The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalore (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”), order passed under section 144 of the Act, date of order 21/12/2019. 2 Sanwala Ram Choudhary 2. The brief facts

DHABAN GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITY,SANGARIA vs. ITO WARD 1 , HANUMANGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 29/03/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld.CPC, Bengaluru (in short, “the CPC”) passed under section 143(1) of the Act, date of order 31/05/2019. 2. The appeal was filed with a delay of 120 days. The assessee

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:

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is justified in allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 1,68,71,111/- u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act ignoring the report of the Tehsildar that Khasa

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1.1 The impugned order u/s 153A rws 143(3) of the I.T. Act. 1961 dated 31.05.2021 as well as the action taken u/s 153A and notices u/s 143(2) or other notices are illegal

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are common and have a same

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are common and have a same

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are common and have a same

VINAY MITTAL,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevinay Mittal Income Tax Officer, 3, J Block, Sriganganagar (Raj.) Ward No. -1, Ward No. 1 Keshrisinghpur Sriganganagar Sriganganagar Pan No. Avopm6894P Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue By Shri P.M. Mirdha, Addl. Cit- Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The Nfac/ Cit (A)] Dated 22.03.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

disallowed the expenses claimed of Rs. 1,20,55,195/- as not verifiable and not allowable to the Assessee looking into the nature of the business. 6. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the Assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has endorsed the finding of the AO by observing that several notices under Section 250

RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of Rs. Rs. 89,18,157/- c. The Hon'ble ITAT may very kindly delete the same. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the detailed facts and figures provided by way of charts in the written submission that the Id. CIT(A) seriously erred in law facts

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)

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. That the ld. CIT Appeals has grossly erred in treating the donations received to the tune of Rs. 1,14,06,043/- as revenue instead of corpus and in treating the donations out of the same

DINESH KUMAR JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, BALOTRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.374/Jodh/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. 2011-12. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer Ward-Balotra, [in brevity ‘the AO’] order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following ground: I.T.A. No.374/Jodh/2019 2 Assessment Year