ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowances: (i) U/s 2(22)(e) Rs.3,70,40,305/- (ii) U/s 36(1)(iii) Rs.1,18,44,224/- (iii) Aircraft expenses Rs. 8,99,000/- Grounds for proposed revision u/s 263 are as under 1. Applicability of provisions of section

SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA,BARMER vs. ITO,WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

disallowance of deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) is outside the jurisdiction of Section 154 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1

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

40] 6] That Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 26.10.2022 had disallowed the claim of exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act on the following two grounds: i. Non filing of Form 10B electronically along with return of income. ii. Non filing of Form 10 before due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1

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

section 40(a)(ia) be made. The AO is directed to delete separate addition of Rs. 13,87,72.635/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. GOA no. 4 is, therefore, allowed. 8.4. GoA no, 2- "The Id. AO has erred in rejecting the books of accounts. The Id. AO has erred in applying ne t profit rate

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

1) as business expenditure. 2 Siddhesh Kumar Gaur 4. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order made by the learned assessing officer making disallowance under section 40

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

MOHAN LAL MENARIA ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed the said amount under section 2 Mohan Lal Menaria [A] 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) in para 5.1 to 5.5 held as under : “5.1 In terms of the second proviso below section 40(a)(ia), inserted w.e.f 1.04.2013, it shall

ACIT, CHITTORGARH vs. M/S.THE BANSWARA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

disallowance of Rs.3,86,244/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of rent payment.’’ 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the Revenue, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- 3.3 I have considered the submissions of the appellant and the relevant findings of the AO. Firstly, the argument

NAVAL KISHORE DAGA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed wherein Interest Income is more than expenses or Appellant is having sufficient Interest Free Fund or owned Funds: 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Rajendra Prasad Moody 115 ITR 519 (SC) COME 2. Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of CIT Vs Gopikrishan Murlidhar, 47 ITR 469 (AP) We would like to submit

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

40,190/- as was originally declared. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 along with a detailed questionnaire were issued on 11.07.2017, which was duly served upon the assessee. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 06.10.2017. In compliance to the notices issued, the authorized representative of the assessee attended and submitted