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

1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

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

1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

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

1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

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

1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

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

1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

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

1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the IT. Act, 1961. It was categorically observed by the undersigned that during the assessment proceedings the FAO neither made any query in this regard nor examined the case of disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of section 36

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, the provisions of section are clear that deduction under this section

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. A/R placing reliance on the various judicial pronouncement submitted that no addition can be made either under section 41(1) or under section 68 of the Act as the AO himself did not specify the section under which he intended to make the addition. The ld. A/R further

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

36(1)(iii) and in section 37(1) had not been served by the appellant and resultantly why the interest expenditure claimed by the appellant to the extent of Rs. 1,18,90,400/- was required to be disallowed

SHRI SIDDHESH KUMAR GAUR ,JODHPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, ACIT, CIRCLE-3, BENGALURU / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

1) making the disallowance under section 36(1)(va). 3. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the alternate

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)

disallowing the legal and legitimate claim of the appellant solely on the ground that the claim was made during the assessment proceedings i.e. Acquisition of Fixed Assets, Purchase of Books and Periodicals and Payment of endowment fund to university of. This approach is arbitrary, unjustified, and against the principles of natural justice. The circular specifically emphasizes the duty

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

36] iii. Further also, Ld. CIT(A) had formed the basis of impugned disallowance under the presumption that the assessment year in the case of appellant trust related to AY 2016-17 whereas the impugned disallowance relates to AY 2015-16.[Para 5.6] Therefore, in view of the above Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the Form

O.S. MOTORS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR` vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. O.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Pr. Cit Sainiks Motor Building, Chopasani Jodhpur-1 Road, Jodhpur-342001 (Raj) Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco 1896 R

36(1)(v) of the Act. (b) Non-disallowance of incentive payments made to employees u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the assessee has not deducted tax at source u/s 194H of the Act. (c) Non-disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld PCIT initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. After hearing

UDAIPUR SAHAKARI UPHOKTA THOK BHANDAR LTD.,,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad441/Jodh/2018 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Udaipur Sahakari Upbhokta Vs The Acit Thok Bhandar Ltd. Circle-2 Ist Floor, Shastri Circle, Uddaipur Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaau 0159 K

section 36(1)(iii), the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business or profession, is not allowable. The interest of Rs.19,500/- paid by the assessee on loan used for godown repairs is not hit by the above proviso. However, the remaining interest of Rs.4,33,408/- paid on loans

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

36,500/- made on account of cash deposit during demonetization period." 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.2 The grounds of the appeal taken by the revenue in appeal

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

36,500/- made on account of cash deposit during demonetization period." 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.2 The grounds of the appeal taken by the revenue in appeal

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

36,500/- made on account of cash deposit during demonetization period." 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.2 The grounds of the appeal taken by the revenue in appeal