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

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

35,788/- The appellant submitted that all the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purpose and were duly supported by proper bills and vouchers. The appellant also explained the nature of these expenses. I find that though the appellant claimed that the AO was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 42,34,358/ but failed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 80IA (4)(iv). 32 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd ii) Enclosed list of all the business premises and godowns and the nature of activity carried out. In addition to this 10CCB of all the 3 branches is also enclosed as a documentary evidence. iii) Please refer copy of Power Purchase Agreements enclosed of all the 3 branches

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)

35 “…..…………….. we are of the clear opinion that the assessee certainly is a religious and charitable trust, hence, the assessee rightly and legitimately claimed an entitlement under sub-section 2(b) of Section 115BBC of the Act. Such entitlement of the assessee is rightly recognized by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal. (Refer page no.148 of paper book) Application

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

35,79,797/-. The case was selected for Scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) dtd. 11.08.2018 was issued and duly served upon the assessee, fixing the case for hearing on 27.08.2018. The revised ROI dated 12.01.2019 also selected for scrutiny, hence notice u/s 143(2) issued on 27.09.2019. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ii) Savitri Foundation VS ITO (ITAT Mumbai) (iii)Sarvodaya Charitable Trust Vs Income Tax Officer. (Exemption) The appellant also quoted Circular No. 2/22 of CBDT dated 03.01.2020 u/s. 119 issued by CBDT. The above submission of the appellant is considered and the following is noted: “Sec. 12A(1)(ba) states as under the person in receipt of the income

UMED HOSPITAL MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, EXEMPTION WARDM,, BANGALORE. JODHPUR

35]. 3] That on 27.03.2017, CPC had processed the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act and disallowed the amount accumulated and set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act for non-filing of Form 10 within due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. 4] That during the year under consideration the appellant had accumulated

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

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. ADARSH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , SIROHI.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

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

35 (redemption): redemption limited to specified authorities; (iv) Sections 7(1)(d), 10(1), 11(7)(a): bye-laws to be consistent with the Act— found otherwise by AO; (v) Section 73: auditor’s duty/qualified remarks noted by AO. B. Alleged violations of assessee’s bye-laws (i) Definition of “member”/“co-operative society” excludes multi-state society; admission

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. ADARSH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , SIROHI.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

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

35 (redemption): redemption limited to specified authorities; (iv) Sections 7(1)(d), 10(1), 11(7)(a): bye-laws to be consistent with the Act— found otherwise by AO; (v) Section 73: auditor’s duty/qualified remarks noted by AO. B. Alleged violations of assessee’s bye-laws (i) Definition of “member”/“co-operative society” excludes multi-state society; admission