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/- for delayed payment of PF amount. The said observation is bad in law and bad on facts. 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, or modify, or Nil delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records

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

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

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

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

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

2(15). However, on review of the said assessment order and records, for the relevant year, it was found that though the AO has denied the benefits of Section 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee but at the same time, failed to tax the surplus income of Rs. 1,46,35,981/- and disallow

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

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

M/S. BHARAT CERA GLASS LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Income Tax Officer, 1-B-24, Shashtri Nagar, Vs Ward-3, Bhilwara Bhilwara Pan: Aaecb4366K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

35 Arihant Kumar Burad 34 Nitesh Mundra 14 Sunil Ranka 14 8. Thus, it can be seen that assessee is a company in which public are not substantially interested. Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is reproduced for ready reference. 56..... (2)..... (viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the expenditure claimed by the assessee as a trust that too without considering audit report filed in form No.10B. 7. This issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Hon’ble High Court Calcutta & Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Devradhan Madhavlal Genda Trust

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

2) along with notice under Section 142(1) dated 03.10.2017 which were served on the assessee. Copy of 3 DCIT vs. U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur- AY: 2013-14 reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148 was also supplied to the assessee. Learned Assessing Officer also noted the facts about accounts of the assessee not audited and hence details

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

35,15,085/- (Rs. 2151 X\n119835 + Rs.250000 X 63) as against approximate sales at Rs.16,81,63,811/-\nshown by assessee. On this basis the AO was of the view that there is under\nreporting of receipts/sales by Rs.10,53,51,274/- (for A.Y.203-14 to A.Y. 2016-17).\nThe AO further observed that another excel sheet named POC method/flat

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

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

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

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. 4. Ground

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

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

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. 4. Ground

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

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