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

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. A/R placing reliance on the various judicial pronouncement submitted that no addition can be made either under section 41(1) or under section 68 of the Act as the AO himself did not specify the section under which he intended to make the addition. The ld. A/R further

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

43,98,484/— on account of provisions for deprecation on NSLR investment in the profit and loss account. As per section 36(1)(vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

43,98,484/— on account of provisions for deprecation on NSLR investment in the profit and loss account. As per section 36(1)(vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

43,98,484/— on account of provisions for deprecation on NSLR investment in the profit and loss account. As per section 36(1)(vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

43,98,484/— on account of provisions for deprecation on NSLR investment in the profit and loss account. As per section 36(1)(vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

43,98,484/— on account of provisions for deprecation on NSLR investment in the profit and loss account. As per section 36(1)(vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

43,98,484/— on account of provisions for deprecation on NSLR investment in the profit and loss account. As per section 36(1)(vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

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

43,47,570/- has been created by the CPC by disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,05,26,665/- for not uploading Form-10B (Audit Report) online before the due date due to technical glitches and practical problems on the Income Tax Portal and It is impossible to pay such a huge demand by the assessee-trust which has been badly

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

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

43,47,570/- has been created by the CPC by disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,05,26,665/- for not uploading Form-10B (Audit Report) online before the due date due to technical glitches and practical problems on the Income Tax Portal and It is impossible to pay such a huge demand by the assessee-trust which has been badly

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

43,93,697/-, out of which Rs. 41,03,070/- has been incurred as Revenue Expenditure and Rs. Nil as Capital expenditure. 2.4 During assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished copies of balance sheet, Income & Expenditure account as well as Receipt and payment account on 03.08.2019. The Assessing Officer noted that the Trust had received total receipts of Rs. 1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1)(va) and section 43(b) of The Income Tax Act for such disallowances are applicable from the Assessment Year

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)’]

43,95,029/- was disallowed by disallowing the exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. In argument, the ld. DR mentioned that the amount received from ‘DKJFFI’. The confirmation for contribution was sent by ‘DKJFFI’. The funds shall be used only for the purposes of acquisition construction running of hospital/dispensary, clinic and for repayment of any loan taken

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)’]

43,95,029/- was disallowed by disallowing the exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. In argument, the ld. DR mentioned that the amount received from ‘DKJFFI’. The confirmation for contribution was sent by ‘DKJFFI’. The funds shall be used only for the purposes of acquisition construction running of hospital/dispensary, clinic and for repayment of any loan taken

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)’]

43,95,029/- was disallowed by disallowing the exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. In argument, the ld. DR mentioned that the amount received from ‘DKJFFI’. The confirmation for contribution was sent by ‘DKJFFI’. The funds shall be used only for the purposes of acquisition construction running of hospital/dispensary, clinic and for repayment of any loan taken

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SUNCITY METALS AND TUBES PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

43(1) clearly states that goodwill to the successor company ssall be the same as it would have been if the predecessor company had continued to hold capital asset witch is zero in this case. 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and law by not appreciating that the cases where the purchase or acquisition of goodwill

DHABAN GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITY,SANGARIA vs. ITO WARD 1 , HANUMANGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

43 days. The ROI U/s 139 was due on 30/09/2018 but was filed on 12/11/2018. By pursing the amendment of Finance Act, 2018w.e.f 01/04/2028 related A.Y. 2018–19 onwards, Section 80AC provides that no deduction under any provision of Chapter VIA under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes" shall be allowed, unless: The return of income

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/ any of the grounds of appeal on or before date of hearing. 3. The issue of ESI/PF payment has attained finality by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services

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

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

43-45) from the Assessee's brothers,\nsupporting that the silver bars belonged to their father and were passed on to them as part of an\ninheritance.\n(e)Confirmation, affidavit of Dharendra Kumar Salgiya S/o Shri KanhaiyaLalJiSalgiya, who is\nthe son of assesees'sBhua, Smt. Mohini Devi and also witness in Will (PB 55-56)\n(e) Statements