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

30 to 36 of the Act, which is provided in section 37 of the Act is not applicable to section 36(1)(va) of the Act which deals with employees contribution to PF and ESI. In other words, allowance of an expenditure is provided in section 37 of the Act and in section 36 of the Act, few deductions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 72A was disallowed. On 30-4-2009, the Commissioner issued the impugned notice under section 263 on the ground

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

disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section

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

disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section

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

disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section

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

disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section

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

disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section

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

disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed by invoking the provisions of section

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