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

1)(va) of the Act which deals with employees contribution to PF and ESI. In other words, allowance of an expenditure is provided in section 37 of the Act and in section 36 of the Act, few deductions are provided. The other conditions of section 37 of the Act i.e. not being personal or capital in nature and being expended

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

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

section either u/s 36(1)(viia) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines

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

section either u/s 36(1)(viia) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines

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

section either u/s 36(1)(viia) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines

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

section either u/s 36(1)(viia) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines

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

section either u/s 36(1)(viia) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines

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

section either u/s 36(1)(viia) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 14.12.2020 along with questionnaire asking about the details of duty drawback claimed and sanctioned along with documentary evidences and details of deduction claimed u/s. 80I/80IA/80IB/80IC. In response to the statutory notice issued, the assessee company filed details and information electronically, which have been examined.” 8.2 Thus, we see that

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

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

section 143(1)(a), your honor will observe that there is no clause (provision) which empowers Ld. A.O. to disallow the expenditures if no Audit Report in Form 10B is uploaded online and therefore, the Adjustment of Rs. 1,05,26,665/- is beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the Ld. A.O. u/s 143(1)(a). Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti

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

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

section 143(1)(a), your honor will observe that there is no clause (provision) which empowers Ld. A.O. to disallow the expenditures if no Audit Report in Form 10B is uploaded online and therefore, the Adjustment of Rs. 1,05,26,665/- is beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the Ld. A.O. u/s 143(1)(a). Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. VIDYA BHAWAN SOCIETY, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradacit, Vs M/S. Vidya Bhawan Circle (Exemption), Society, Mohan Singh, Jodhpur Mehta Marg, Fatehpur, Udaipur (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Udaipur Dated 27.06.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

37,350/-. The AO treated it to be violation of the provision of section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. He therefore, treated the surplus amounting to INR 2,11,32,268/- as business income and further made addition on account of disallowance

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 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

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

37 to 39] 5] That on 17.08.2018 the appellant trust had filed an application u/s 154 of the Act before ITO, Exemption, Jodhpur seeking to rectify the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act along with Form 10 and resolution passed requesting to accept the Form 10, which is pending adjudication till date. [PB Page No. 40] 6] That

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

disallowance under section 36(1)(va). 3. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the alternate plea that even if the employees contribution to PF/ESI is not allowable u/s 36(1)(va) then the same is allowable u/s 37

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

37 years, but no amendment of section 31(3)\nwas undertaken to nullify the rulings, to which we have referred. In view of this, we do\nnot think that we should interpret section 31 differently from what has been accepted in\nIndia as its true import, particularly as that view is also reasonably possible.\"\n10. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

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

37 years, but no amendment of section 31(3)\nwas undertaken to nullify the rulings, to which we have referred. In view of this, we do\nnot think that we should interpret section 31 differently from what has been accepted in\nIndia as its true import, particularly as that view is also reasonably possible.\"\n10. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed to the extent, vide rectification u/s 154. (3) Alternatively: how assessment completed u/s 143 (3), proceeding u/s 154 is not amenable? Copy of reply dated 04/05/2018 attached at Pg No 54 to 97. Yet the Ld. AO did not consider without considering case laws furnished. In first appeal, it has been argued on similar line like:  Provision of section

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

37,56,32,712/- u/s 40(a)(ia), being 30% of the expenditure amounting to Rs 1,25,21,09,040/- on which TDS had not been deducted This disallowance being nearly 8.76% of the revenue, further addition to total income was pt justified. As discussed in Para- 5.6 above, the A. O has in fact not made any adjustments