MADAN LAL AND PARTY,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT, BIKANER

The appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.233/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.234/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Madan Lal & Party Pr. Cit (Hanumangarh Town) Income Tax Office बनाम/ C/O Neeraj Chawla Ca Rani Bazaar, Bikaner Vs. 55, Adarsh Nagar, Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan. Rajasthan-335 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacam-3229-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

section 263 and another is filing appeal before the H'ble Rajasthan High Court against the order of the H'ble ITAT Jodhpur. 2. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including submissions made during assessment proceedings as well as during revisional proceedings. The judicial precedents as cited during the course of hearing have

SHRI GAUTAM SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 120/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke Shri Gautam Sharma The Dcit Vs. 221-222, Shyam Nagar, Scheme, Pali Central Circle Link Road, Jodhpur Jodhpur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Awdps 1276 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By: Shri Abhimanyu Yadav, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/06/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Dated 12-02-2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 147/ R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 Due To Prevailing Covid-19 Pandemic Condition, The Hearing Of The Appeal Is Concluded Through Video Conference. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.40.57 Lacs Paid Towards Purchase Of Land, By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act.

b. CIT V/s Union Agencies (1987) 166 ITR 529 (Delhi). 5 ITA 120/Jodh/2019 Shri Gautam Sharma vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur c. Kantilai Purshottam & Co. V/s CIT (1985) 155 ITR 519 (Raj.). d. The Jariambhumi V/s CIT (1997) 225 ITR 517 (Gau.). e. CIT V/s Brugmohan Singh & Co. (1994) 209 ITR 753 (P&H). f. CIT V/s A.D. Jayaveerapandia

M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

2,500 by crossed cheques under clause (j) of rule 6DD 1. Clause (j ) of rule 6DD provides that no disallowance under section 40A(3) shall be made where the assessee satisfies the Income-tax Officer that the payment could not be made by way of a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft

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)

40A(2)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee has taken the DCF method for valuation of share which is followed by the Rule 11UA the Rule. However, there is no dispute between the parties that Rule 11UA

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

40A(2)(b) of Rs.3,14,702/- on account of alleged excess interest paid to the related party. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad hoc disallowance of mustard oil expenses and other expenses of Rs.1,50,000/- by holding that the personal use cannot be ruled out.” 2. The hearing

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) passed a speaking order and upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. I.T.A. Nos. 329 to 330/Jodh/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2015-16 5. The ld. AR submitted the written submissions which

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) passed a speaking order and upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. I.T.A. Nos. 329 to 330/Jodh/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2015-16 5. The ld. AR submitted the written submissions which

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

B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Udaipur-2, dated 25.11.2022. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1. Because the order passed by learned CIT(A) dismissing appeal is bad in law. 2. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances

M/S. PYROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act have not been verified by the AO. Similarly, the assessee company has made purchases of raw material, intermediaries and finished goods from the companies which are under control of the Directors of the assessee company. The genuineness and reasonableness of these transactions are also not verified by the AO. 4 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A(2)(b) reported in audit report & ITR. Thus, the claim of the deduction u/s 80IA was clearly not the subject matter of limited scrutiny and where the AO has failed to examine and verify the said claim of the assessee, the order so passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous as the same was not within

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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 income chargeable under the head “Profite and gains of business

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

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 income chargeable under the head “Profite and gains of business

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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 income chargeable under the head “Profite and gains of business

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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 income chargeable under the head “Profite and gains of business

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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 income chargeable under the head “Profite and gains of business

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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 income chargeable under the head “Profite and gains of business

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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 income chargeable under the head “Profite and gains of business

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

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 income chargeable under the head “Profite and gains of business