DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

4 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 interest by utilising the donation of Dr. Kirti Kumar Jain. The ld. AO had rejected the claim U/s 11 and added back the expenditure amount to Rs.76,01,540/- with total income. The ld. AO had rejected the benefit of Sec 11(1)(d) related to corpus fundthe amount was utilised

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

4 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 interest by utilising the donation of Dr. Kirti Kumar Jain. The ld. AO had rejected the claim U/s 11 and added back the expenditure amount to Rs.76,01,540/- with total income. The ld. AO had rejected the benefit of Sec 11(1)(d) related to corpus fundthe amount was utilised

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

4 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 interest by utilising the donation of Dr. Kirti Kumar Jain. The ld. AO had rejected the claim U/s 11 and added back the expenditure amount to Rs.76,01,540/- with total income. The ld. AO had rejected the benefit of Sec 11(1)(d) related to corpus fundthe amount was utilised

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallow exemption under section 54F on same facts was not sustainable [In favour of assessee]. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 445 (Delhi - Trib.); SarojArora v/s ITO Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Capital gains Profit on sale of property used for residence (One Residential housel Assessment year 2013-14 During year, assessee had received long term capital gain (LTCG

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

disallowed under section 14A of the Act. 4) Hoshang D. Nanavati Vs ACIT [2012] 16 ITR(T) 614 (Mumbai

U AND T TRACTOR SPARES PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

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

4 Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Co. & Others vs. CPC u/s 143(1) should have allowed the deduction as claimed by the assessee. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and other Hon'ble High Courts in various cases has held that the payment made on or before due date of filing of return of income, no disallowances can be made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA, SHASTRI NAGAR, BHILWARA vs. BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANG LIMITED, AJMER ROAD, BHILWARA

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

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

4) has been inserted to provide that the provisions of the said section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative society agricultural land and rural development bank. Accordingly, the AO has disallowed exemption claimed u/s 80P (2)(d

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after

BIKANER CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosianmohangarh Engineers & Vs The Dcit, Construction Company Circle -1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aanfm4741R

d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further

MOHANGARH ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosianmohangarh Engineers & Vs The Dcit, Construction Company Circle -1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aanfm4741R

d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further

WHEEL O CITY,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further

WHEEL O CITY,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further

ARPIT GULECHA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further

SANTOK SNGH GEHLOT,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further