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 37

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of PF raised by the issue we are in agreement with the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee that the issue that the ld. PCIT is raising was not a subject matter of the limited scrutiny 36 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd assessment. Therefore, ld. FAO has not authority to look beyond what is subject matter

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

37 | P a g e clearly show that before framing the reassessment order under s. 147/ 148, no notice under s. 143(2) was prepared, issued and served upon the assessee. Therefore, reassessment order is illegal, invalid and bad in law and is liable to be set aside. It is well-settled law that assessee can challenge the validity

PATEL MINERALS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowances. Thereafter, a notice u/s 263 notice was received by the assessee from the ld PCIT, Udaipur stating that the report required for this purpose should be from the FCA i.e. the fellow member of the ICAI whereas the report in question was obtained from an associate member of the ICAI. As this point was ignored

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

section 11 and 12 shall apply to the case of the assessee Accordingly no exemption is granted u/s 11(2) of the IT Act for the year under consideration In result the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before ld. NFAC/ CIT(A). The present appeal filed

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

Disallowances / Addition of Rs. 13,52,000/- (Rs. 14,63,000/- - 1,11,000/-) u/sec. 56(2)(viib). (C) Any other matter with prior approval of the Hon'ble Bench. 2. In this case on following dates, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. i. 19.01.2023 ii. 08.08.2023 2.1 The notice for scheduling the hearing for 08th August

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

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

2. In this ground, the appellant has challenged disallowance of expenses on which TDS was not made. This disallowance was made by the AO as there were certain expenses on which TDS was not made and the appellant himself had admitted this fact and made disallowance in his ITR. The stand of the appellant is that once income is assessed

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

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(1) as business expenditure. 2

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

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

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 and added to the total income of the appellant during the year under consideration. I find that the appellant could not prove or establish that such interest

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

37 and 38 as\nunder:\n37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in\nthe light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that\nemerges is as under:\ni. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(1)\nwill

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). 3. Ground No. 2