PARSSA RAM,MERTA vs. ITO, WARD-3,, NAGAUR

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

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the Ld. AO disallowed the cash payment of Rs.20,51,007/- as claimed

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 40A(3) in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add/alter

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHAHNAVAJ NAJIK L.H OF LATE SH. IQBAL NAJIK, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Acit Vs Shri Shahnavaj Najik Circle-Pali L/H Of Late Shri Iqbal Najik 173, Ashapura Nagar, Pali (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpn 5861 D

disallowance of Rs.1,34,00,000/- on account of expenditure incurred in cash for purchase of land u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that there is clear mention that such payment was made in contravention of provisions of Section

GAJESINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.64/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act whereas the SCN under Section 263 was regarding the FIFO method of valuation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

section 154 of the Act.’’ 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessment in the assessee's case was completed u/s 143(3) for AY 2014-15 by order dated 08-11-2016 assessing total income at Rs 7,40,430/-. Thereafter, the AO noticed that the assessee paid rent of Rs 1,87,864/- to M/s Rajasthan State

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

40a(ia) are not attracted. Same thing is provided in provisions of section 44AD, A44AE, 44AF, 44B, 44BB, 44BBA, and 44BBB. Provisions of section 44AD are reproduced below - "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 28 to 43C, in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to eight per cent

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)

Disallowance on account non 7,58,076/- commencement of business activity treating the same as capital expenditure 3 Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) entire share 51,00,000/- capital and Share Premium Amount Total Addition 58,58,076/- Total Income 51,00,000/- 5. Being aggrieved, appellant filed first appeal before CIT A-1, Udaipur (Raj) which was later

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

3) and addition was confirmed for contravening section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11 UA of Income Tax Rule 1962 ( here in after Rule). The difference of amount of share premium with the NAV, calculated by the ld. AO was added back with the total income of the assessee. During hearing, the assessee submitted the valuation of shares under “Discounted

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

3) and addition was confirmed for contravening section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11 UA of Income Tax Rule 1962 ( here in after Rule). The difference of amount of share premium with the NAV, calculated by the ld. AO was added back with the total income of the assessee. During hearing, the assessee submitted the valuation of shares under “Discounted