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

RAVINDRA HERAEUS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDIAPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in light of aforesaid directions

disallowable u/s 40A(2) of the Act. The ld. AR therefore submitted that the intent and purport of information disclosed in clause 9A of Part A- OI of the Income-tax Return in ITR-6 and Clause 23 of the TAR being materially Ravindra Heraeus Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr. CIT different, and the figures reported in ITR and in Clause

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

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

35,00,000/- .The same was given out of the interest free RishuArora 247500/- funds of Rs. 2,70,82,157/- as on 31.03.2013. Smt. 177540/- Thus no interest bearing fund has been Rukmani diverted for giving advance to these parties. Accordingly, the disallowance of interest made by computing notional interest is uncalled for. 6.1 The Ld. A/R further submitted

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

35,280/-. Thereafter, the ld. PCIT had issued a show cause notice dated 22/02/2021 which was served upon the assessee. In response to the notice U/s 263 of the Act, the assessee submitted reply before the ld. PCIT and finally the ld. PCIT passed the order U/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the order

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

RAMESH RAJ BHRA,JALORE vs. DCIT,BARMER CIRCLE,, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aappb 7135 G

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% so made by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 3 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 6. It was argued

PUSHAP RAJ BOHRA ,JALORE vs. DCIT, BARMER CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aanpb 4456 C

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 6. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

section 194A is not applicable. Similarly, the Coordinate Bench of the Ahmadabad Tribunal in the case of Omkara Impex and Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2018) 53 CCH 0201 (Ahd.) (Trib.) has held that discounting charges are outside the 11 ITA 45/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs Smt. Alpana Gupta. purview of interest expenses, therefore, in our considered view, the question of making