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

disallow the claimed capital expenditure of Rs.5,25,52,586/-. Since, the assessee was hit by provision of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the total taxable income comes to Rs.6,71,88,566/- (Rs.1,46,35,981/- + Rs.5,25,52,586/-), therefore, the assessment done at NIL income by the AO is erroneous as the final computation

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

disallowed. Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Kolkata high court in case of CIT Vs. Magnum Exports Private Limited 262 ITR 10, wherein while considering the claim of the assessee under section 80 HHC of the income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such report along with the return and filed

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

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

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that it is not the business of the assessee to find out the source or sources from where the creditor had accumulated the amount which he had advanced in the form of loan to the assessee and Section 68 cannot be read to show that in the case of failure of sub- creditors

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that it is not the business of the assessee to find out the source or sources from where the creditor had accumulated the amount which he had advanced in the form of loan to the assessee and Section 68 cannot be read to show that in the case of failure of sub- creditors