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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. The above position is further clarified by the usage of term 'includible' in the Heading to section 14A of the Act and also the Heading to Rule 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 which indicates that it is not necessary that exempt income should necessarily be included in a particular year's income, for disallowance to be triggered Also, section

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

4. The deduction of the said income is provided in ‘Section 36 – Other deductions’ wherein section 36(1)(va)of the Act provides as under:- “36. (1) 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— (va) any sum received

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

4. The deduction of the said income is provided in ‘Section 36 – Other deductions’ wherein section 36(1)(va)of the Act provides as under:- “36. (1) 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— (va) any sum received

SMT. LEELA DEVI SANKHLECHA,JODHPUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmismt. Leela Devi Sankhlecha Vs The Ito C-133, Kamla Nehru Nagar Ward 3(4) X-1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aobps 7384 G

4), JODHPUR necessary details for working/ calculation of figures under rule 8D. With these directions, the ground nos. 1 and 2 are disposed of. The grounds are treated as allowed. 07. Vide ground no. 3, the appellant contended that the provisions of section 14A are not applicable in the case of the appellant as the expenditure of interest on borrowed

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

3) in computation of income. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the action of Ld AO for not allowing set off of brought forward capital loss of Rs. 13,01,585/- in the computation sheet. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

3), (4), (4a), (5). I am of the considered view that if the return is filed within the specified time limit of sub section of 139 would be eligible for the benefit given by the above mentioned CBDT circular and should avail the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. In my considered opinion the CIT(A) erred

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of Rs. 3,16,663/- out of interest expenses claimed from the rental income. 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.” 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that return declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,637/- was e-filed

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of Rs. 3,16,663/- out of interest expenses claimed from the rental income. 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.” 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that return declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,637/- was e-filed

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

disallowance. The Circular No. 8/2014 rather clarifies the reason as to why the share of profits of a partnership firm is exempt from tax in the hands of partner. The same is reproduced here-in-under: "SECTION 10(2A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 - FIRM -SHARE OF PROFITS TO PARTNER OF FIRM – CLARIFICATION ON INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

MAA BHARTI JAN KALYAN TRUST,KOTA vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA Nos 480 & 481/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

4) of the Act, only the excess portion can be disallowed as per section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Act. 3

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Disallowance under section 14A of the I T Act: (i) With regard to your honor’s invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, we humbly submit that your honor has duly accepted and stated that AO has made a query with reference to section 14A r.w.r 8D during assessment u/s 143(3). The assessee have received a notice

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

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

disallowance or addition and while doing so has under-assessed\nthe income of the assessee. In cases where the AO has not dealt with the issue at all\nand has not applied his mind on the taxability or non-taxability of a certain matter,\nthen the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to enhance under section 251(1) but should\nresort

LAKHPAT TRADING AND INDUSTRYS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelakhpat Trading & Acit, Circle-3 Industryspvt. Ltd. Jodhpur G-72/73 79/80, 1St Phase, Boranada, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Aaccl 5668 C Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/ Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein The Rejection Of Its Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3), Estimation Of Income & Reducing Genuine Sales.

3) and estimating GP is perverse to the facts or record. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 1,19,26,410/-. 17. In ground No. 7 to 14, the appellant has challenged the confirmation of addition of Rs 1,11,60,612/-in respect of alleged bogus sales. 18. It has been discussed as above that the assessee company

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Ld. AO has grossly erred in law & facts in charging interest u/s 234 of the Act. 4. The appellant reserves rights to add/alter/amend/withdrawn any/all grounds of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case that the assessee is engaged in the business of Hotel and Resort as proprietor