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

2(24)(x) of the Act. Further the said amount is allowable as a ‘deduction’ under section 36 of the Act wherein section 36(1) provides ‘The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28’. 11. Section

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the IT. Act, 1961. It was categorically observed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A of the I T Act for disallowance of expenses related to investments which may be in the form of dividend on shares. 2. Disallowance of employee’s contributions to provident fund u/s 36

PUSHAPRAJ KOTHARI,JASOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER, BARMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years : 2018-19 Puspapraj Kothari Vs. The Acit, Yashwal, Nakoda Road, Jasol, Barmer Circle, 344024 Barmer Pan No: Aaupk1365N Appellant Respondent

2. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section 36

MONA MARBLES PVT. LD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

2. Since the issues involved are common in these appeals which were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section 36

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

2. Since the issues involved are common in these appeals which were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section 36

MONA MARBLES PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

2. Since the issues involved are common in these appeals which were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section 36

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

2. Since the issues involved are common in these appeals which were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section 36

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 6.5 A similar view has been taken by this Bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 65 & 66/Jodh/2021 in the case of Sawrup Ram Vs. ITO vide order dated 28.09.2021. 6.6 Therefore, we restore

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 6.5 A similar view has been taken by this Bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 65 & 66/Jodh/2021 in the case of Sawrup Ram Vs. ITO vide order dated 28.09.2021. 6.6 Therefore, we restore

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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- 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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- 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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- 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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- 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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- 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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

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

disallowing the amount of Rs. 68,62,780, i.e. the income which has escaped assessment as per the reasons recorded. Neither the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment nor any other material on record demonstrate that the issue relating to the claim of deduction under s.801A of the Act was ever a subject matter of dispute in the re-assessment

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